Retired garda (85) withdraws appeal over destruction order against his dog

A High Court appeal against an order directing the destruction of a Jack Russell terrier dog owned by an 85-year-old retired garda has been formally withdrawn.

The destruction order was made arising out of an incident when the dog, called Kim, who belongs to Donal Rogers, bit Breid Greene as she was walking the Strokestown Famine trail.

The incident occurred on the afternoon of March 6th of this year close to the entrance of Mr Rogers’s home at Bumlin, Strokestown, Co Roscommon.

In her evidence to the court, she said that no warning or growl was given by the dog before she was bitten on the leg.

Jacques Nienaber says Leinster got it wrong in three areas against Toulouse

---

Your top stories on Wednesday: TikTok video prompts inquiry into HSE data breaches; roadside drug tests for drivers in serious crashes

---

Michael McDowell: Irish ‘sneaking regarders’ of Trump are naive about the threat he poses to democracy

---

Darragh Ó Sé: Changing grades hasn’t worked out - the GAA needs to go back to U-18 and U-21

---

Ms Greene, of Cashel Road, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, said she was bitten from behind, that the dog tore the trousers she was wearing and inflicted her with a bite that required eight stitches.

She further told the court that she required medical treatment for her wound at hospitals in counties Roscommon and Tipperary.

Arising out of the incident, Ms Greene, who made an application to the Roscommon District Court under the 1986 Control of Dogs Act, obtained in late April an order from the court directing that the dog be delivered to a dog warden in the county to be destroyed.

The District Court held that the dog is dangerous and was “not kept under proper control”.

Mr Rogers opposed Ms Greene’s application and later appealed the decision to the Circuit Court.

The appeal was brought on grounds including that no evidence or history was given about the dog before the District Court, that no evidence was accepted from Mr Rogers, that the doctrine of the one-bite rule was not taken into account by the District Court judge.

He also argued before the Circuit Court that Ms Greene “appeared to be an animal hater”, had refused any offer of a settlement from Mr Rogers and was adamant that the dog be destroyed.

He further claimed that the District Court judge had, when making the destruction order, directed that the parties be given time to come to a settlement.

In its decision last May, the Circuit Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s order.

Arising out of that decision, Mr Rogers sought to bring an appeal against the destruction order before the High Court.

In order to do that he was required to make a preliminary application before the High Court seeking an extension of time so he can be allowed bring his appeal.

The matter was briefly mentioned before the deputy master of the High Court Grainne O’Loughlin, a senior court official who deals with cases before they go before a judge of the High Court.

Ben Clarke BL instructed by Kieran Friel of McHale Muldoon Solicitors, for Mr Rogers, said his client had decided to withdraw his application to have the matter go before the High Court and that the matter could be struck out.

Representing herself, Ms Greene asked the deputy master if the withdrawal meant that the destruction order remains in place and if this was the end of legal proceedings regarding the case.

Ms O’Loughlin said she assumed the order did indeed remain in place, adding that while the case mentioned before her was at an end, any other potential legal actions were a matter for Mr Rogers.

Mr Clarke agreed with the deputy master that the issue of going down further legal avenues rested with his client.