Housing ACT washed its hands of two dogs in the years before they savagely mauled a six-year-old boy, a court has heard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A neighbour of the animals told the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday that he and his wife had made several complaints, over a period of years, to Housing ACT after dogs at the Griffith property kept escaping and menacing the street.
But he said he had instead been referred to Domestic Animal Services.
"We got in the habit of calling nuisance animals because Housing said it wouldn't do anything about it," the man said.
He said a pit bull-type dog continues to reside at the property, despite several previous dogs – including the two involved in the attack – being removed.
The man gave the evidence in the case of attack victim Jack Hartigan, who is suing the ACT Government for its alleged failure to ensure the public housing property was safe for those accessing it.
Jack suffered horrific injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the attack, with skin ripped from his head, his face torn open, teeth knocked out and eaten, and an eye damaged.
He had since endured 17 major operations, with more expected.
The tenancy agreement at the Griffith property stated that pets "must not be kept without written permission", but the resident never sought or was granted permission for the American pit bull terriers.
The ACT Government has admitted Jack suffered injuries and disabilities as a result of the attack, but denies liability.
Jack's barrister, John Purnell, SC, told the court on Wednesday that Housing ACT had ultimate responsibility for the state of the Roe Street home.
"Housing can't escape responsibility by subcontracting to other government agencies to maintain safety at the premises," he said.
He argued that ignoring the dogs' presence at the home had breached the agency's duty.
The court will hear from the ACT Government legal team when the case continues before Justice Hilary Penfold on Thursday.