Sfar -v- Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine & ors, [2016] IEHC 165 (2016)

Docket Number:2016 196 JR
Party Name:Sfar, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine & ors
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW[2016 No. 196 JR]

BETWEEN

DONA SFARApplicantAND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELANDRespondents

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 5th day of April, 2016

  1. On 16th October, 2014, the applicant obtained leave from the High Court (Peart J.) to challenge certain animal welfare measures taken against her by the first named respondent (2014 No. 614 JR). She is now being prosecuted for alleged animal welfare offences, which prosecution is, I am told, due for hearing in the District Court on 7th April, 2016.

  2. On 4th November, 2015 she applied to Kearns P. for a stay on the prosecutions. This application was not brought as a stay application in the first judicial review, but rather as a stand-alone second judicial review (2015 No. 608 JR). The application for a stay was refused. She appealed this refusal to the Court of Appeal (2015/570) and that appeal is due for hearing on 13th June, 2016.

  3. Her judicial review proceedings are due to be heard in the High Court on 31st May, 2016.

  4. Representing herself, she now applies by way of a new, third stand-alone judicial review, for leave to seek a stay on the prosecutions pending the hearing of her first judicial review or the appeal in the second judicial review.

  5. She has furnished both a filed and an unfiled version of her statement of grounds, each seeking different reliefs on different grounds. The unfiled version is more extensive, referring to previous animal welfare convictions, which were set aside and her claim that the fact of conviction, even though later quashed, led to her being “shamed on a number of animal rights web sites”. It appears that in 2010 the applicant was convicted by the District Court of fifteen counts of cruel ill-treatment under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as well as failing to bury an animal carcass to which a dog had access under the Control of Dogs Act 1986, and this was overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal in 2012 (Sfar v. Brennan [2012] IESC 28 (15th May, 2012), per Denham C.J. (Hardiman and Clarke JJ. concurring)). Denham C.J. allowed the applicant’s appeal in so far as the District Court prohibited the applicant from keeping “animals” for ten years, where it only had jurisdiction to prohibit her from keeping dogs under s. 18(1) of the 1986 Act. The High Court quashed the order but remitted the matter to the District Court, who instead of making a new...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL