Landmark case

Mayo farmers win landmark legal case

A landmark case against two Mayo farmers, accused of allowing their sheep to graze in a habitat protected by EU regulations, has been dismissed.
At Ballycroy District Court last week, Judge Mary Devins delivered a reserved judgement in the case against Mr Michael Joseph Leneghan and Mr Patrick McHugh, both with addresses at Tarsaghaun Beg North, Ballycroy.
Judge Devins said that, after reviewing the submissions and the case law, she found that the Department of the Environment needed to prove the two farmers intended to break the law. She said it was not enough for the Department to prove that overgrazing had taken place, and that the farmers were responsible.
At a previous sitting of Ballycroy District Court, the farmers faced a complaint from the Department that they had allowed their sheep to graze on protected lands, outside of the designated season. Under the European Birds and Habitats Directive, farmers must remove their livestock from the Owenduff/Nephin Complex Special Protection Area (SPA) during November and December and between February 15 and May 15 every year. The defendants were alleged to have allowed their sheep to graze in the restricted area in May of last year. When detected, a number of their sheep were seized by an inspector of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
The defendants' solicitor, Tom Walsh, contended that it was unreasonable to expect sheep to respect boundaries that existed only on paper. Both defendants had farmed the lands in question for many years, and most of their property was inside the protected area. It would put the farmers to unreasonable expense if they were to farm the way the Department of the Environment wished.
At last week's court sitting, Judge Devins said the case hinged on whether or not there was a need to prove 'mens rea', ie that the farmers intended to break the law. She noted there were certain statutes which impute strict liability. In such cases, the complainant need only prove that a wrongful act happened and that the defendant was responsible.
In this case, Judge Devins said, she was not persuaded that strict liability applied. She compared the EU Birds and Habitats Directive to other statutes which impute strict liability, including fisheries legislation and the intoxicating liqour licensing laws. She said the alleged offences, in this case, could not be regarded as being contrary to public welfare. They did not contravene codes on public health, safety or morals.
The judge said there were small areas of unprotected lands around Ballycroy, surrounded by much larger areas of restricted territory. She noted that both farmers owned only small amounts of undesignated land. It was very difficult to prove that the movement of sheep, in this case, was not accidental. The penalties which the defendants faced were weighty.
The judge concluded that strict liability was not imputed by the EU Birds and Habitats Directive. She found that intent (mens rea) had to be proven in order to secure a prosecution, and dismissed the case against both farmers.
Judge Devins said that as the case was the first of its kind, it would be inappropriate to make any order on costs.