The High Court has refused all relief sought in two linked judicial review cases brought by Dona Sfar over Department of Agriculture inspections, an animal welfare notice and the seizure of her sheep and pigs in 2014.
Mr Justice Twomey’s judgment, delivered on 20 June 2016, concerned two separate proceedings: one limited to alleged acts or omissions on or before 3 April 2014, and a second covering later events, including the welfare notice and seizure. The court dismissed the applications; it did not grant any of the declarations, damages or injunctions sought.
The judgment records that a departmental veterinary inspector visited Ms Sfar’s property in Kilcurry, Co Louth, several times from March 2014. The inspector reported concerns including inadequate water, shelter and bedding, a lame or emaciated sheep, and debris that could injure animals. After a further inspection in July, the Department served an animal welfare notice on 21 July requiring steps including veterinary care, shearing, food and water, and improved shelter and fencing.
The inspector returned on 22 July and found a sheep with severe maggot infestation, which was euthanised. On 8 August, the Department seized the remaining animals, citing concerns that had not been addressed. They were taken to an animal shelter for care; one lamb died within hours of arrival. The judgment says the District Court upheld the welfare notice and the Circuit Court upheld that decision on appeal. The Veterinary Council had also told the inspector in February 2015 that it found no indication of professional misconduct.
Ms Sfar argued, among other things, that the statutory powers of entry and seizure breached her rights, that the notice and seizure were procedurally unfair, and that an appeal should have prevented seizure while it was pending. The High Court rejected those claims. It found no basis for several challenges to statutory provisions, including because other legal remedies were available or the provisions cited did not govern the Department’s actions. It held that the appeal process was an effective remedy and that the Department’s repeated visits and eventual seizure were proportionate in light of the animal welfare concerns described in the judgment.
The court also refused compensation and injunctions, including orders to prevent disposal of the seized animals or future seizures. It noted the Department’s indication that it would consider returning the animals if its concerns were addressed; the judgment did not order their return.
Separately, the judge said the two applications amounted to further attempts to challenge the welfare notice after unsuccessful proceedings in other forums and described them as verging on an abuse of process. The court made no order restricting future proceedings. It also disapproved of the professional misconduct complaint against the inspector, saying such a complaint should not be used simply to challenge a professional decision.