The Head of the Department of Agriculture’s special investigation unit (SIU) Brian Flaherty came in for severe criticism from a circuit court judge in a Cavan Court this week.

After the state’s case for criminal wrongdoing, taken against Cavan farmer Douglas Fanning, collapsed, Judge Leonie Reynolds in her summary to the jury said: “It suggests to me, ladies and gentlemen, that in calling into question Mr Fanning’s integrity, in fact what really has been called into question in this case is the integrity of the prosecution.”

In making this statement, she excluded the state’s legal team, saying: “I am not suggesting any impropriety on the part of Mr Owens, Ms Lawlor or, indeed, Mr Hayden in the manner in which they have presented this case.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The SIU visited Mr Fanning’s farm on 20 and 24 March 2009 resulting in Mr Fanning being prosecuted by the DPP on 16 counts: eight counts of introducing a substance into the body of an animal for the purpose of affecting the accuracy of a TB test carried out between 14 and 17 March 2009, and eight counts of criminal damage with fraudulent intent on the same animals.

The allegation was that he deliberately interfered with the TB test on eight animals in order to claim compensation for reactors.

The prosecution’s case centred on whether or not in March 2009 suckler farmer Douglas Fanning had the eligible animals also tested for brucellosis during a TB test of 43 animals which showed up 15 reactors.

The suggestion throughout the prosecution case had been that Mr Fanning didn’t look for a brucellosis test because he had never intended to move these animals in the first place, the innuendo being that, in fact, the purpose of simply having a TB test was so that he would have an opportunity of interfering with it.

The hearing had continued for two weeks when the defendant entered the witness box to give evidence. He told the court that he thought that he had requested a brucellosis test but couldn’t be certain because the event coincided with his mother-in-law’s death and funeral.

While Mr Fanning was being cross examined, Mr Owens SC for the prosecution, who for two weeks had been putting the case that no brucellosis test was requested, suddenly changed his stance saying that the Department of Agriculture’s own records showed that the Fanning cattle had been brucellosis tested on the first day of the TB test in March 2009.

Prosecution counsel stated that Mr Brian Flaherty was not aware that the animals had been brucellosis tested.

Mr Owens SC said that he would be taking up with the Director of Public Prosecutions himself as to how things got to this stage.

Judge Reynolds stated: “I do hope my comments about what I have said about the investigation will be noted. It has been less than impeccable in how they handled the investigation.

“Certainly, it seems to me there was a very heavy-handed approach adopted here and, as to how matters were handled thereafter, they were handled in a less than fair manner. I hope those comments will be taken on board in the Department and matters will be looked into.”

Earlier in the proceedings, Judge Reynolds had asked the jury to leave to give Mr Flaherty the opportunity to consult with his legal team about his court behaviour and evidence.

When proceedings recommenced, the judge commented: “Is the fact that you are back so quickly that Mr Flaherty refuses to take direction from anybody? I have never come across a witness who has treated the court in the manner you have done.

“You have certainly done everything to create difficulty for counsel. It stops now”.

In her summing up, Judge Reynolds said: “The idea that such information as this would come out at this stage in a case is of great concern to the court for this reason.

“There is never any onus on the defendant to get into the witness box and give evidence. An accused person never has to prove their good name or anything of that nature. An accused person doesn’t have to prove anything or disprove anything. In this case, the accused person, Mr Fanning decided to get into the witness box and it was in the course of that evidence that, in fact, we got to the truth of the matter. This certainly has cast a shadow on the prosecution and as far as I am concerned has contaminated the prosecution.”

She directed the jury to bring a verdict of not guilty by direction of the court in respect of the outstanding charges.

She added: “I want to be very clear, Mr Fanning leaves this court here today with his reputation fully intact and without any question mark hanging over his integrity.”

Speaking to the Irish Farmers Journal, Douglas Fanning said that the outcome of the case was a monumental relief for himself and his family who had endured a nightmare for the past four and a half years.

Mr Fanning was represented by Ken Fogarty SC and Randal Hill BL, instructed by Brendan Muldowney & Co Solicitors.