The Court of Appeal has dismissed Kevin O’Keeffe’s appeal against a High Court decision requiring his dog to remain in professional kennels pending a fresh District Court hearing on a complaint under the Control of Dogs Act 1986.
The original District Court hearing took place on 21 January 2023, after very short notice. O’Keeffe’s solicitor sought a brief adjournment so he could attend the next sitting, but the District Judge refused and ordered the dog’s destruction. The order was stayed after O’Keeffe obtained leave to seek judicial review.
The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána later agreed not to oppose quashing the District Court order. The High Court quashed it but directed that the dog remain detained pending a rehearing. O’Keeffe challenged that condition, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to continue the detention and that the dog should be released to his cousin. The High Court had no evidence about the cousin’s ability to care for or control the dog.
The Court of Appeal said the legality of the dog’s initial seizure and detention had not been challenged in the judicial review. Quashing the District Court order therefore did not automatically require the dog’s release. It held that the High Court had jurisdiction to set conditions governing the position while the complaint was reconsidered, and that keeping the dog in professional care struck the appropriate balance pending that hearing.
The court also upheld the High Court’s view that the District Court could consider evidence of the dog’s behaviour in kennels after the original hearing. Veterinary and kennel reports described escalating aggression and attacks on carers; the Court of Appeal referred to this as significant prima facie evidence of danger. It rejected O’Keeffe’s arguments that the statutory tests had to be assessed only at the date of the original hearing or only by reference to behaviour while the dog was in his control.
The appeal court also declined to disturb the High Court’s costs decision, finding it within the range of decisions reasonably open to that court. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not decide whether the dog should ultimately be destroyed; that question remained for the District Court rehearing.