A High Court judge has ruled that a black Belgian Shepherd dog accused of biting a Garda while its owner was being arrested must remain in the custody of a professional kennel operator until an application to put the animal down is determined.
In his ruling Mr Justice Garrett Simons said that it was in “the public interest” that the dog, described as being highly dangerous and aggressive, remain “incarcerated” pending the rehearing of a Garda application to the District Court to have it euthanised.
The dog is owned by Kevin O’Keefe, with an address at Oliver Bond Flats in Dublin 2, who is currently serving a two-and-a-half-year custodial sentence in Mountjoy Prison.
Last January he was arrested by members of An Garda Síochána at his home.
Apple MacBook Pro M4 review: A great option, but only if you actually need the power of the Pro
Why I’m happy not to be an alpha male
Dave Hannigan: Katie Taylor’s presence lends a modicum of dignity to sporting farrago
The Music Quiz: Harry Styles sings about what type of restaurant on his 2022 album Harry’s House?
During the course of the arrest on foot of a bench warrant issued by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, the court was told that a Garda was attacked and bitten by the dog.
The dog, known as Theo aka Cleo aka Deo, was seized and placed in professionally run kennels.
A few days afterwards the alleged attack, a complaint was made by a Garda under the 1986 Control of Dogs Act to the District Court.
A judge of that court subsequently granted an order directing that the dog be destroyed.
Mr O’Keefe disputes the allegation made against the dog.
Arising out of the destruction order Mr O’Keefe’s lawyers brought High Court judicial proceedings against the Garda Commissioner seeking to have that decision set aside on grounds including that fair procedures were not followed.
The owner’s lawyers claimed that Mr O’Keefe was not given the required seven days’ notice of the application for the destruction order.
He also said that the District Court was wrong not to issue a production order that would have allowed him to attend the hearing.
A stay was placed on the destruction order pending the outcome of the High Court challenge.
In a judgment on Friday Mr Justice Simons said the Commissioner does not intend to defend “the procedural unfairness” of the District Court’s destruction order
This concession is sensibly made, the judge said, adding that both sides “broadly agree” that the case should be remitted back to the District Court for a fresh consideration.
However, the court had been asked to determine what should be done with the dog pending the rehearing of the destruction order application.
The judge said that the court had been asked to determine what is to happen with the dog in the meantime.
The applicant had asked the court to release the dog into the care of his cousin.
The Commissioner argued that in the interest of public safety, the dog should be kept in professional care pending the outcome of the rehearing.
He said that the court had been provided with a report from the kennel operator about the dog that made “worrying reading”.
The report said that the dog has exhibited “extremely aggressive behaviour” and has attempted to “attack and bite all of its carers on a daily basis”.
Staff at the kennel find it difficult to feed and clean up after the animal, he said.
Evidence was given that the dog’s behaviour has “deteriorated steadily since its incarceration” and it was recommended that it be “euthanised or removed from the facility.”
The judge said a vet’s report agreed that the “fit, athletic” dog was proving to be “very dangerous in the vicinity of other housed animals” was “unpredictable” and was “a dangerous dog”.
In his decision the judge said that the balance of justice favoured weighed heavily in ordering that the dog remain in professional care pending the outcome of the rehearing.