Dear Redland City Council,

Under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), I request access to documents and records that will help determine whether the Council's treatment of my case — involving the seizure of two registered dogs from 261 Avalon Road, Sheldon, on 11 April 2025 — is consistent with how similar incidents are handled, or if it represents a deviation from standard practice.

Specifically, I request:

1. A summary or list of all dog seizure incidents recorded by Council between 1 April 2024 and 12 April 2025, including for each case:

Whether the dog was registered,

Whether an injury occurred,

Whether evidence (e.g. photos, video, witness statement) was submitted,

Duration of impoundment,

Whether the dog was released without conditions,

Whether a property inspection was required before release,

Whether a regulated/dangerous dog declaration or destruction order was issued.

2. The number of first-time escape cases involving registered dogs in the same period where:

No confirmed injury or evidence of aggression was recorded,

The dog was detained for more than 24 hours,

A property inspection was requested prior to release.

3. Any internal policy, procedure, or memo that outlines when:

Council requires property inspections as a condition for release,

Council escalates incidents without evidence of injury,

Council delays release beyond the standard holding period for non-regulated, non-aggressive dogs.

This request is made to determine whether the approach taken in my case reflects a broader pattern or constitutes selective or inconsistent enforcement.

If summary data can be provided administratively, I am happy to accept a table or spreadsheet format.

Yours sincerely,
Jake Kersley

Dear Council,

I am writing to formally request that Redland City Council provide, without requiring a paid RTI application, all records, evidence, and internal documentation relating to the seizure and ongoing detention of my two dogs, Lexi and Max, associated with CRAM555987 and the alleged incident on 11 April 2025.

This includes, but is not limited to:

Any photos, videos, or witness statements relating to the alleged dog attack;

Officer notes or field reports authored by Compliance Officer Cohen Holloway or other staff;

Internal correspondence, memos, or decisions concerning enforcement and inspection;

Any records Council is relying on to condition the release of my animals on a property inspection.

I believe this material falls within the scope of an administrative release under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), as it:

Directly relates to me and my registered animals;

Is being used by Council to make enforcement decisions that affect my legal rights;

Has not been made available to me despite multiple formal requests.

It is neither transparent nor procedurally fair for Council to rely on undisclosed records to restrict the return of my animals while simultaneously refusing to provide access to those same documents unless I pay a fee.

I respectfully request a written response within 48 hours, confirming whether this material will be released administratively. If not, please provide written justification outlining why this information cannot be disclosed outside of a paid RTI application.

Kind regards,
Jake Kersley
261 Avalon Road
Sheldon QLD 4157
[email address]
0427 788 861

Dear Ethics.Integrity at Redland City Council,

We have received no contact.

Yours sincerely,

Jake Kersley

I have serious concerns that despite multiple RTI requests submitted in good faith — including detailed, specific, and justified queries — Council continues to issue decisions (including a dangerous dog declaration and infringement notice) without supplying any supporting evidence, photographs, witness statements, or bodycam footage as previously claimed.

Council has now taken punitive action without transparency or due process, and without satisfying even the basic evidentiary standards outlined under Local Law 2 (Animal Management) 2015. This includes failing to disclose the material used to justify these decisions — despite multiple requests made via the appropriate channels.

I must again request, under the RTI Act 2009:

A full copy of all evidence, complaints, reports, or internal communications relied upon to issue infringement INF2100019217 and the proposed dangerous dog declaration CRAM555987;

A formal reason why my RTI applications have been dismissed without valid effort to extract and release accessible documents, even where the creation of a report was not required;

Confirmation that my previously submitted emails outlining these concerns will be taken into account, especially noting that both myself and Colin Simpson were separately advised by the alleged victim’s family that no attack occurred.

If Council refuses to process these requests and continues to act without transparency, I will seek immediate review with the Office of the Information Commissioner, lodge an internal review of all decisions made in this case, and refer the matter to QCAT where applicable.

Please treat this email as a formal demand for review, and kindly confirm whether these matters will now be addressed substantively or escalated under the relevant review pathways.