An infant who suffered severe facial injuries in a “vicious attack” by a French Bulldog is suing the State over legislation which prevents prosecution of the dog’s owner.
The infant was with his father and visiting the home of his father’s friend in December 2021 when he was attacked by the dog.
He required emergency plastic surgery and has been left with “life-changing injuries” which necessitate ongoing medical care, according to papers lodged with the High Court.
When the child’s mother made a complaint to her local Garda station she was told it was not a criminal matter as the attack occurred on private property, the court papers state.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
The music of 2024: Our critics’ verdicts on the best albums and acts of the year
‘One Christmas Day my brother set me on fire’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Kellie Harrington fought hard for the dream ending she well deserved
When she tried to make a complaint to her local county council and asked the dog warden to investigate, she received the same response.
The child, through his mother, has launched a judicial review in the High Court against the Garda, the county council and the attorney general and is seeking a declaration, “if necessary”, that legislation in the area is unconstitutional. The child’s identity is protected under law.
The man told authorities he was minding the dog for someone else at the time but under law, he was considered the dog’s owner.
Part of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 states there is no obligation on a dog owner to keep their animal under control while it is on their private premises. This was used as a justification by the Garda and the council not to prosecute the owner of the bulldog, the papers state.
‘Repugnant’
In his application to the court, the child’s solicitor, Ciarán Mulholland, said these sections of the Act should be struck down as they were “repugnant” to the Constitution, including the constitutional right to bodily integrity.
He submitted that the child was being discriminated against as if the attack occurred in a public place, the owner could be prosecuted.
He is also seeking various orders compelling the Garda and council to investigate the attack and a declaration that the child’s rights have been breached.
Following the attack, the child’s mother and Mr Mulholland repeatedly tried to have an investigation launched into the owner of the dog, with no success, they allege.
The child’s mother said she was told by a local garda it could not investigate as the incident happened on private property. A council representative told Mr Mulholland that “as the incident took place on private property [the council] has no further involvement with the matter”.
Both the Garda and council are opposing the judicial review on several grounds, including that the child and his mother waited too long to lodge their case and that there are other avenues of recourse available to them other than a judicial review.
Both agencies also contend that they did launch investigations. In the council’s case, this resulted in the dog owner being issued a €100 fine. When he failed the pay the fine, a summons was issued but the case was withdrawn when it emerged the summons contained a mistake.
In the Garda’s case, it said it sent a file on the matter to the DPP which decided that no charges should be brought. However, neither the child or the mother were informed of this fact.
The Human Rights and Equality Commission has been granted permission to become a party to the case as it concerns the compatibly between legislation and the Constitution.
A full hearing is expected to take in October.
