The Court of Appeal has sent two of Dona Sfar’s claims about animal welfare powers back to the High Court for retrial, while dismissing her appeals on all other issues.
In a judgment delivered on 28 February 2020, the court allowed the appeal only over the High Court’s refusal to consider on their merits claims that sections of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claims concern entry onto land or premises, including the curtilage of a dwelling, and officers bringing people or equipment to assist them. The Court of Appeal remitted those claims to the High Court for retrial; it did not decide whether the provisions are incompatible.
The cases arose from inspections of Ms Sfar’s land at Kilcurry, County Louth, where she kept sheep and pigs. A ministerial veterinary surgeon inspected the land on several occasions in 2014. The High Court found that the animals lacked adequate water and care, some needed veterinary treatment, and there were concerns about their conditions and the risk of escape onto a road. A welfare notice was served on 21 July 2014. After a further inspection on 8 August, the animals were seized and taken to a shelter. The High Court found that they received veterinary care there and that a weak lamb died within hours of arrival.
Ms Sfar challenged the notice and seizure through statutory appeals. The District Court rejected her appeal, and the Circuit Court upheld the notice. She then brought two High Court proceedings, seeking declarations and other relief, including challenges under Irish constitutional and Convention rights.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had been wrong to refuse the Article 8 claims concerning sections 38(1)(a) and 38(6) on the ground that another legal remedy might have been available. It said the claims should have been examined on their merits. It also agreed that regulations Ms Sfar had challenged did not apply to the officials’ actions, which were taken under the 2013 Act.
The court upheld the rejection of her remaining claims. It found no error in the conclusions that the seizure did not breach property rights, that the procedures provided adequate safeguards, and that Ms Sfar had opportunities to raise her views before the notice was issued. It also rejected her challenges concerning the pig herd number, repeated entries, damages and injunctions. The court’s order was to remit the two Article 8 claims for retrial and dismiss the appeals in all other respects.