A pit bull may avoid destruction thanks to its owner's successful High Court appeal (file photo).

A woman whose pit bull terrier cross severely injured a jack russell may yet save her dog from destruction, after taking her case to the High Court.

But Denise Beryl Mead will still have to convince the court her dog, Monty, should live.

According to a recently published judgment from Justice Jillian Mallon​, the case had its genesis on the banks of the Whanganui River on October 27, 2017.

Monty and Mead were at Kowhai Park. Monty was playing in the river while another woman was walking her jack russell Alfie nearby.

READ MORE:

* Judge rules that dog was part of 'frenzied and ferocious' attack on child and must be destroyed

* Farmer loses appeal against conviction for nicking neighbour's cows

* Dog to be destroyed after attacking woman in Marlborough

The two dogs came together and Monty gripped Alfie around the neck.

Alfie's owner tried to stop the attack and poked Monty in the eyes and stuck her finger up the dog's bottom.

Monty did release, only to grab Alfie on the right shoulder.

Mead, seeing what happened, shouted and pulled Monty away, before giving her contact details to the other woman.

Alfie required emergency surgery, during which his jaw was wired together.

He now requires full-time care, having to stay at a care facility while his owner is at work.

A dog control officer met Mead the day of the attack and she admitted what happened, explaining her dog could be aggressive to other dogs.

Monty was impounded by the Whanganui District Council, but returned to Mead on the proviso he live with her, wear a muzzle and leash when not at home, and not be under the care of anyone but Mead or her husband.

She pleaded guilty to the charge in May, but began to protest when the sentencing judge, Judge Philip Crayton​, began talking about the possibility of Monty being put down.

She sought legal advice from a duty lawyer, but her protests were ultimately unsuccessful and the judge ordered Monty's destruction. She then appealed to the High Court.

A key point of the appeal was the paperwork Mead was given when charged, and advice given by dog rangers.

The rangers told her she would go to court and probably get a fine, but doubted Monty would be destroyed because it was his first attack.

Meanwhile, the charging document said the maximum penalty was a $3000 fine. There was no mention of a potential destruction order.

That explained Mead's surprise when she heard about the death sentence from Crayton.

Mead also disputed part of the court summary of facts, in which the council alleged Monty ran out of the river at Alfie.

She said she and Monty were going back to her car, and Alfie approached from the side, frightening him.

Mallon said that dispute was potentially important when considering Monty's fate.

Furthermore, Crayton focused too much on the attack itself, and not on what happened before and afterwards, Mallon said.

"In this case, Monty has been returned to his owners,

"That only occurred because the council was satisfied Monty was not a threat to public safety on the conditions that applied to Monty's release."

It was important to note Monty had not attacked before, while Mead had no previous convictions or history of being an irresponsible dog owner, and had offered to cover the vet bills for Alfie's treatment.

But Justice Mallon did not go as far as reversing the destruction order. She said how the attack started needed to be sorted in the District Court first.