Harkin v Maher (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This application arose from a case stated sent by the District Court in proceedings under section 22 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986. The immediate relief sought was to append the DAR transcript of the District Court hearing as an appendix, amend one stated question, or send the case back for amendment. [Para 10]

The District Court heard the underlying complaints on 28 May 2025 and made destruction orders in respect of three dogs owned by the Appellant/Defendant. The complaints followed incidents on 28 March 2025 and 3 April 2025, at which the District Court heard evidence from police officers, the Appellant/Defendant, and a witness described as a friend of the Appellant/Defendant. [Para 13][Para 18][Para 19][Para 20][Para 22]

The District Judge recorded that one dog pursued police officers, another struck a rear door from its hinges, and that all of the dogs presented a danger; the judge then stated two questions for the opinion of the High Court, including whether there was adequate evidence on which to make the orders. The present application was directed only to the second question. [Para 26][Para 27][Para 31][Para 34]

The Applicant/Complainant sought to amend the second question so that it expressly referred to the DAR transcript, or alternatively to have the case stated sent back for inclusion of the transcript as an appendix. The transcript had been made available to the parties, but the final draft case stated was agreed and signed without any application being made to append the transcript at that stage. [Para 36][Para 37][Para 38]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether section 22(1) of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 requires the court to find both that a dog is dangerous and that it is not kept under proper control before making an order. [Para 32][Para 23]
2. Whether the DAR transcript should be appended to, or otherwise treated as part of, the case stated so that the High Court could answer the second question on the basis of the full evidence. [Para 36][Para 40][Para 41][Para 42]
3. Whether the stated question about “adequate evidence” was, in substance, a challenge to primary findings of fact for want of evidence, or instead a challenge to the District Judge’s conclusions and inferences. [Para 132][Para 139][Para 140]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant/Defendant's Arguments

• Section 22(1) was said to contain two cumulative requirements: the court had to be satisfied that the dog was both dangerous and not kept under proper control. [Para 23]
• It was further submitted that there was no evidence to support the District Judge’s findings, particularly because three of the dogs were confined in cages on 3 April 2025. [Para 23]

Respondent/Complainant's Arguments

• The Respondent/Complainant argued that the dogs were used as a threat against the police officers and were not under control; the case was said to involve a deliberate act by a restricted-breed dog for which no exemption had been produced. [Para 23]
• For the present application, the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the transcript was necessary because the second question turned on the “evidence,” and the transcript was said to be the complete and most accurate record of that evidence. [Para 40][Para 41][Para 42]
• The Respondent/Complainant also said that the recital of evidence in the case stated was incomplete and did not fully capture the detail given in the District Court. [Para 42][Para 43][Para 44][Para 45][Para 46]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Dignam first reviewed the authorities and accepted the general rule that a case stated should not ordinarily include evidence or a transcript, except where the point of law is that a primary finding of fact was made without any evidence to support it. [Para 129][Para 130]

The judge then held that the stated question—whether there was “adequate evidence” to make the orders—was not a challenge to primary findings of fact but to the District Judge’s conclusions and inferences, and in any event was framed in terms of adequacy rather than the absence of any evidence. That took the application outside the narrow exception in which a transcript is needed. [Para 132][Para 133][Para 134][Para 135][Para 136][Para 137][Para 138][Para 139][Para 140]

The court added that even if the question were treated as one about primary facts, “adequate evidence” is not the same as “any evidence,” and deciding adequacy would require the High Court to weigh competing evidence, which is beyond the proper function of a case stated appeal. The judge also noted that the District Judge had already recited some of the evidence relied upon, so the transcript was not necessary for the court to assess the issue as framed. [Para 140][Para 141][Para 142][Para 143]

Independently, Judge Dignam refused relief because the case stated had been agreed and signed without any timely application to append the transcript while the matter was still before the District Court. The court considered that the proper course would have been to raise the dispute before finalisation, and it relied on DPP v Davitt for that proposition. [Para 144][Para 145][Para 146][Para 147]

Holding and Implications

REFUSED. The court declined to amend the question, declined to append the DAR transcript, and declined to send the case back for amendment. The immediate effect was that the case stated remained as agreed, and the judgment reaffirmed the existing rule that transcripts are generally only relevant where a primary finding is challenged for want of evidence, not where the complaint is about the sufficiency of evidence for the court’s conclusions. [Para 148][Para 130][Para 139][Para 144]