A veterinary inspector who was banned from keeping animals for seven years and fined €4,000 in the District Court has had the severity of his sentence reduced on appeal in the Circuit Court.
Michael O’Reilly of Cois Maigh, Mogeely, Castlemartyr, Co Cork was convicted by Judge Colm Roberts at Midleton District Court in May 2024 when he pleaded guilty to seven charges under the Animal Health and Welfare Act, 2013 in relation to 10 dogs kept at his kennels near his home.
He was fined a total of €4,000, ordered to pay €5,000 in costs, given a three month suspended sentence and disqualified from keeping animals for seven years.
At Cork Circuit Court in Midleton counsel for Mr O’Reilly, Jessica Kelleher BL told Judge Helen Boyle that she would be seeking to have her client’s suspended prison sentence reduced to a record under the Probation Act and she was also seeking to have his disqualification on keeping animals reduced.
Giving evidence ISPCA inspector Caroline Faherty told the court that she visited the kennels at Killamuckey, Mogeely on three occasions in May 2023 initially inspecting the premises by herself and later returning with a veterinary inspector and dog warden from Cork County Council.
Ms Faherty said that she found 10 dogs, eight Irish terriers, one Welsh terrier and one Jack Russell living in dark, dilapidated sheds in “appalling conditions”.
She said that six of the dogs were fearful and aggressive indicating they had not been properly socialised. She described mounds of faeces up to four-feet-high covered in mould and showing signs of rodent activity.
Ms Faherty said that there was “faeces everywhere” and it was “difficult to find anywhere clean to stand.” She told the court that many of the dogs had matted fur and one had alopecia but they were not underweight.
Ms Faherty said that when she discovered that the owner of the animals was Michael O’Reilly who is a veterinary inspector with the Department of Agriculture she was “shocked” to hear it.
She told the court that the conditions of the kennels were so bad that they probably had not been cleaned for months and that the buildings were not fit for purpose.
She said that when she put her concerns to Mr O’Reilly he was “aggressive” and “dismissive.” She said that on two subsequent visits the conditions had got worse and there was more faeces evident.
Ms Faherty said that Mr O’Reilly initially indicated he would “rather put the dogs to sleep” than surrender them but eventually agreed to place eight of the animals in a local boarding kennels.
She said that once in the kennels one of the dogs gave birth to a litter of puppies which Mr O’Reilly brought home. Ms Faherty said that Mrs O’Reilly later confirmed to her that all of the puppies from the litter had died.
Ms Kelleher said that Mr O’Reilly was in a distressed state at the time because his father was seriously ill in hospital. She said that he was an only child and his father had suffered strokes and and had eventually gone into palliative care.
She said that Mr O’Reilly was under serious stress as a result and would not normally have allowed the conditions the dogs were kept in to deteriorate in such a way. She said that as a result of the prosecution Mr O”Reilly would most likely lose his job and was currently the subject of disciplinary measures.
She added that he had suffered psychologically as a result and provided a psychiatric report to the court. She said that Mr O’Reilly had pleaded guilty and had apologised to Ms Faherty for the way he had treated her.
She added that he had demolished the old sheds and built new, modern kennels and a veterinary inspection confirmed that the dogs were in good condition and well looked after.
She said that the offences represented “one moment in time when he was struggling in his personal life” and did not reflect how he usually treats animals. She added that he had no previous convictions, was remorseful, had lost his father and would probably loose his livelihood as well.
Judge Boyle said: “There may have been a certain dawning of reality,” for Mr O’Reilly following his conviction. She said that she accepted he was under stress when his father was ill and the time period seemed to correspond.
She said that Ms Faherty was to be commended as she had saved the dogs from the situation she found them in. She added that it was right that Ms Faherty should get an apology from Mr O’Reilly for the way he spoke to her even if it was offered “somewhat belatedly.”
Judge Boyle upheld the three month suspended sentence and the €5,000 in legal costs to be paid, but she reduced the total amount of fines payable from €4,000 to €2,000.
Regarding the disqualification from ownership she said: “In my view this man has come a very long way.”
She said that he would be entitled to keep the nine dogs currently in his possession until the number had reduced to four. When there were four dogs still surviving he would be permitted to keep a maximum of four dogs for a period of six years.
