The Court of Appeal has dismissed Kevin O’Keeffe’s appeal over a High Court order that his dog remain in professional kennels pending a fresh District Court hearing of a complaint under the Control of Dogs Act 1986.
The court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to impose that condition when remitting the complaint. It also rejected arguments that the District Court could not consider evidence of the dog’s behaviour in kennels after its seizure. The appeal was decided by Mr Justice Noonan, with Mr Justice Costello and Ms Justice Butler agreeing.
The dog, a Belgian shepherd called Cleo, was seized when Mr O’Keeffe was arrested at his home on 17 January 2023. The judgment says it was alleged that the dog attacked and bit a garda during the arrest. A garda later complained to the District Court under section 22. On 21 January, after refusing a brief adjournment request, the District Court ordered the dog destroyed, with the destruction due two days later.
The High Court granted leave for judicial review and stayed the destruction. The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána later agreed not to oppose quashing the District Court order. The High Court quashed it and remitted the complaint for a fresh hearing, but directed that the dog remain in kennels in the meantime. Mr O’Keeffe challenged that detention condition. His judicial review grounds had not challenged the original seizure or detention.
The Court of Appeal said quashing the District Court order did not itself require the dog’s release because its original seizure and detention had not been challenged in the proceedings. It upheld the High Court’s decision to maintain the existing arrangement pending the rehearing. The appeal judgment cited veterinary and kennel reports describing aggression and attacks on carers; it said there was significant prima facie evidence that the dog could threaten public safety if released. Those reports were not final findings on the complaint.
The court also rejected the argument that the District Court must assess whether the dog was dangerous and properly controlled only by reference to its circumstances at the original hearing or its behaviour while in kennels. It agreed that evidence of later behaviour could be relevant at the fresh hearing. The Court of Appeal did not itself decide whether the dog met the statutory test or should be destroyed; that complaint remained for the District Court.
The High Court had made no order as to costs. The Court of Appeal found that decision was within the range of discretion open to the trial judge and dismissed the appeal.