The Supreme Court has denied a prisoner’s plea for a supplementary appeal centred on the liberation of his “hazardous” dog from a kennel, where she is currently being held, awaiting a garda’s rehearing to destroy her. Cleo, a Belgian Shepherd, was apprehended after purportedly attacking a garda during the arrest of her master, Kevin O’Keefe, on January 17, 2023, due to a bench warrant.
The Garda Commissioner ordered a veterinary report which recommended euthanasia due to Cleo’s dangerous, extremely hostile behaviour, unsuitable for confinement. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal rejected O’Keefe’s petitions to free Cleo pending the District Court hearing. In December, the Court of Appeal commented O’Keefe’s position as hard to justify given his imprisonment during this period.
O’Keefe tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing the court should establish the legal grounds for limiting his rights via an order condition. However, the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench remained unconvinced, stating that O’Keefe’s incapability to be with his dog isn’t attributable to Cleo’s detention.
Justices Marie Baker, Brian Murray and Aileen Donnelly stated that the lower courts correctly employed “fundamental principles” related to the court’s inherent jurisdiction imposing conditions to a decision order for reconsideration.
On January 20, 2023, O’Keefe, from Oliver Bond Flats in Dublin 2, received a two and a half year sentence for property damage, under the Criminal Damage Act of 1991, and other accounted charges by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Subsequently, a Garda claimed to the District Court under the Control of Dogs Act of 1986, alleging Cleo as dangerous, insufficiently controlled. O’Keefe’s solicitor’s request for postponement was denied and Cleo was ordered to be euthanised after two days.
In response, O’Keefe filed a critical High Court plea to reverse the order. The Garda Commissioner stated he wouldn’t oppose quashing the order, allowing the District Court to rethink the matter.
Ruling against O’Keefe, The High Court’s Justice Garrett Simons refused the request for his cousin to take custody of the canine. O’Keefe had disputed the High Court’s capabilities to direct the animal to stay in its current detention place as there existed no adequate order from the District Court.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland of the High Court had previously suggested that the dog await the new directive while detained. O’Keefe’s primary focus during his substantial legal review process had not been to challenge the seizure and detention of his dog. Instead, he was more concerned about the District Court hearing’s fairness.
As a result, the Court of Appeal denied his appeal, insisting there was “significant evidence to suggest the animal is potentially a high risk to public safety and, subsequently, should remain in its current place of confinement.”
For the latest political analysis, listen to our Inside Politics Podcast, receive up-to-date news, analysis, and commentary alerts directly to your phone, or stay informed with The Irish Times on WhatsApp.