Judgment: 2006-05-30 · Court archive

Animal cruelty convictions quashed over Kildare dog fight after appeal court finds presence was not enough

Court of Criminal Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Troy Jordan
  • David Deegan (Applicant)
  • Judge McCartan
What

Animal cruelty convictions quashed over Kildare dog fight after appeal court finds presence was not enough

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Brockagh
  • Circuit Court
  • Court of Criminal Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

On appeal, Jordan and Deegan raised several complaints about the conduct of the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not determine those issues because it accepted their principal argument: the evidence was insufficient for the cruelty charge to have been left to the jury at all.

The Court of Criminal Appeal has quashed the animal cruelty convictions of Troy Jordan and David Deegan arising from a dog fight at Brockagh, Robertstown, Co Kildare.

The two men had been convicted by a jury of cruelly ill-treating two pit bull terrier bitches and causing unnecessary suffering during an incident on October 31, 2003. They sought leave to appeal their convictions.

At their Circuit Court trial before Judge McCartan, the indictment had contained two counts. A second count alleging involvement in fighting the animals was struck out as void for duplicity. The first count was amended and left to the jury, which convicted both men.

On appeal, Jordan and Deegan raised several complaints about the conduct of the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not determine those issues because it accepted their principal argument: the evidence was insufficient for the cruelty charge to have been left to the jury at all.

The prosecution had relied on the men's admitted presence at the location. The trial judge considered that the isolated setting, the nature of the event and their voluntary presence could permit a jury to infer encouragement of the offence.

The appeal court disagreed. Mr Justice Geoghegan, delivering the court's judgment, said presence at the scene of a crime does not by itself establish criminal responsibility. There must be evidence of a common design or of aiding and abetting, although encouragement can in an appropriate case be inferred from circumstances.

Here, the court found that only presence had been proved. There was no evidence that either applicant gambled on the fight, fled from arrest or otherwise assisted or encouraged what occurred. A finding of implied encouragement would therefore have required speculation rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court treated the applications for leave as the appeals themselves, allowed both appeals and quashed the convictions. No new trial was ordered.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review