NSW Is Design of Home Security System Legal Under Australian Law?

[WorriedMum2]

We have recently suffered our third break-in in as many years. The thieves it seems are extremely brazen and have masked themselves to avoid detection with our security cameras and have completely ignored the fact that we own a large protective dog in our backyard. We received notification on our phone of the break in and had to watch it all take place as they smashed through parts of the house ransacking what we have.

We are about to give a contractor the go ahead to setup a door that would be slid open and locked open by either of us remotely with the aim that our dog gets instant access to the inside of our home. Are there any legal issues we have to worry about under Australian Law?

 

[Rod]

Yes. If you let your dog into the house while you are not there and knowing an intruder has just entered your house, and your dog kills or seriously injures the intruder you can be charged with serious criminal offences. The positive act of letting the dog in is a real problem for you.

You should have warning signs on all entrances to your property and on the back and front doors saying dangerous dog inside. You fit a doggy door that responds to an electronic collar that allows free access into the house for the dog. No intervention necessary by you and appropriate warnings are in place.

 

[WorriedMum2]

Yes. If you let your dog into the house while you are not there and knowing an intruder has just entered your house, and your dog kills or seriously injures the intruder you can be charged with serious criminal offences. The positive act of letting the dog in is a real problem for you.

You should have warning signs on all entrances to your property and on the back and front doors saying dangerous dog inside. You fit a doggy door that responds to an electronic collar that allows free access into the house for the dog. No intervention necessary by you and appropriate warnings are in place.

Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify a couple of things. If I have signs indicating "dangerous dog" does this not in some way expose us to problems? Is there are a better message to put on signs that suit our situation? eg. "Dog protective of property on premises"

And in relation to the positive act of letting the dog in, how would it be different if we automated the sliding door opener as part of the security system. eg. Motion detection inside the home when security system is on triggers door to lock open without our intervention?

 

[Rod]

I don't see much difference in the signs from a liability perspective.

re: Letting dog in. Having the dog freely come in and out is better. Setting up a system that only allows the dog in when triggered by a security system is not much different to you doing it remotely.

 

[WorriedMum2]

I don't see much difference in the signs from a liability perspective.

re: Letting dog in. Having the dog freely come in and out is better. Setting up a system that only allows the dog in when triggered by a security system is not much different to you doing it remotely.

Thank you for your opinions on this. We've been discussing this today and we may have an alternative solution that I'd ask your legal opinion on.

Without going into detail our dog trainer tells us it wouldn't be hard to train the dog that he could use the unrestricted doggy door based on hearing a certain sound which essentially would be directing him to come in and get fed or rewarded.

Given he had free access in and out and I had the signs up would this allow us to achieve our objective and avoid legal liability? I'm guessing you might say that if the dog was trained to come in that it puts us in the same boat?

 

[Tim W]

1. If I was acting for somebody suing you, I'd be arguing that,
signs or no signs, you were using the dog as a weapon.
You don't get to do that.

2. Unless your dog trainer is a lawyer,
his advice about the law is not reliable.

3. Any way you look at it, you are always liable to
prosecution and/or civil suit for the actions of your dog.

Have a read of this.

 

[Rod]

Keep in mind I don't give legal advice and can't give legal advice as I am not a lawyer.

If it was me I feel I'd be less likely to be criminally prosecuted. If the criminal is likely to be injured by my dog, I'd make sure my homeowners insurance covered me for this type of event and I'd put up warning signs, and I'd do nothing to encourage an attack by my dog. Allowing my dog free access to my house for water and shelter is being a responsible dog owner.

Feeling frightened in my own home is not something I'd put up. I'd take steps but in a way that doesn't significantly increase my liability or I'd move.

You may also want to consider monitored security. Could be cheaper than a large dog.

 

[Tim W]

Monitored security in the domestic context
is one of the great scams of modern life.
Spend the money on bars and locks instead.

 

[Rod]

Depends on the security company. No different to most industries, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Had a business in Vic sometime ago and the security company was quite good and responded well on the couple of occasions we had when there was an incident. And they'd call us when someone forgot to set the alarm by a particular time.

 

[Tim W]

Depends on the security company. No different to most industries, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Had a business in Vic sometime ago and the security company was quite good and responded well on the couple of occasions we had when there was an incident. And they'd call us when someone forgot to set the alarm by a particular time.

Perhaps it's different for the commercial property market
(it isn't, I'm just being polite).
But in the domestic context, they are all just pirates trading on fear.

Let's get back to the original question.
OP wants to know how they can use their dog
as more then a visual and/or psychological deterrent to intruders,
without being liable when the dog does what they want it to do,
and will have trained it to do,
which is, attack an intruder.

I do not see how, at law, that is possible.