[ad_1]
A man has filed an appeal in the High Court against the Garda Commissioner to get his puppy back.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has a mental disorder.
After being admitted to a psychiatric facility, he claims that the Gardaí obtained a court order preventing him from having pets, prompting An Garda Síochána to take his puppy and hand it over to the DSPCA.
He claims that the order against him is illegal and in the judicial review proceedings against the Garda Commissioner he requests an order from the High Court for the dog to be returned.
He is also seeking an order overturning the District Court orders, issued under Section 61 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act of 2013, issued against him.
In addition, he requests a statement that the orders issued against him under the 2013 Law are illegal and violated the principles of natural and constitutional justice.
John Berry Bl, instructed by attorney Conor Ruane for the man, told the Superior Court that his client was detained by the Gardaí under the Mental Health Act following a reported disturbance at the man’s home a few weeks ago.
Later, the man was admitted as an involuntary patient to a psychiatric center and the dog was taken away by the Gardaí.
After receiving treatment at the center for a month, the man was released and is progressing well, the lawyer said. He requested the return of An Garda Síochána’s puppy, but was told that the DSPCA had re-housed the dog.
The lawyer said that the man discovered that before his release, An Garda Síochána filed an application with the District Court regarding the puppy.
Several warrants and a statement under the 2013 law were obtained against the man, that he was unable to care for an animal.
The District Court ordered that any animals in the man’s possession be transferred to the DSPCA for proper care and relocation, and that the number of animals in his possession be reduced to zero.
The lawyer said the gardaí never informed the man of his intention to request such orders. The lawyer added that it is not known where the dog is currently located.
The lawyer said that the challenge has been filed for various reasons, including that his client was never informed of the filing of the lawsuit before the District Court, which violates his right to fair procedure and the Constitution.
It is further argued that in issuing the order against the man, the District Court acted outside of its powers.
The man is the registered owner of the puppy, and it is argued that there is no impediment for him to take care of the dog, as he is no longer in custody under the Mental Health Act.
In an affidavit in court, the man said he had “a close connection” to the dog. He obtained the puppy from a reputable breeder, and he vaccinated and microchipped the dog.
The man also disputes the garda’s claims before the District Court that the cub lived in an inappropriate environment.
The man, who is separated from his wife and family and had lived alone, said at the time of his arrest that his house “could have been messy” but was in no way dangerous to the dog.
Judge Charles Meenan granted permission to bring the action, ex parte. The judge returned the matter to a date in October.
[ad_2]