The High Court has declined to grant the orders sought by Dona Sfar in four overlapping judicial review cases concerning the seizure of her dogs, pigs and goats by public authorities in 2007.
In a judgment dated 22 October 2007, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy found that the applicant had not made a sufficiently cogent case for the requested relief. The cases sought declarations and injunctions concerning the seizures, and challenges to the authorities’ legal powers.
The court held that “dwelling” under section 16 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 did not include a property’s curtilage or outbuildings. It accepted that the dog warden entered a boiler house and other enclosed areas, as well as a yard and paddock, but found that he did not enter the house at Kilcurry. The court could not determine whether that house was used as an occasional dwelling. It also said there was no evidence that the warden entered the applicant’s Dundalk home.
The judgment found that the pigs, goats and sheep were kept for farming purposes and that the European Communities (Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes) Regulations 2006 applied. The court cited evidence that the applicant described herself as a farmer, bred pigs for sale and used goats in training sheep dogs.
On the animals’ condition, the court accepted evidence from the respondents’ veterinary surgeons about their health and nourishment at the time of seizure. It accepted that dogs examined later by the applicant’s veterinary surgeon may have improved after treatment and feeding. The court also found no evidential basis for the applicant’s allegations that officials acted in bad faith or with bias, saying the allegations lacked the required specificity.
The proceedings comprised four judicial review records, with Louth County Council common to them. The judgment recounted earlier leave and interim injunction orders, including restraints on disposing of animals. Its final conclusion was that the applicant had not established a case for the orders requested. The judgment does not state the terms of a separate final order dissolving each earlier injunction.