Department refuses to publish Fannin report

Agriculture won’t say where supposedly contaminated cattle went

Paul Neilan

The Department of Agriculture is refusing to divulge into what food-chain supposedly contaminated cattle went.
Last week, The Anglo-Celt reported on the aftermath of the case of Douglas Fannin who has a 200-acre farm in Drung.
Mr Fannin had been wrongly accused by the department of tampering with cattle before they went for a TB test.
The case, which concluded at Cavan Circuit Court in November of last year, referred to cattle sent for slaughter by the department in March 2009.
The department wrongly alleged that Mr Fannin tampered with the cattle in order to fail the test so that he could claim compensation.
The judge, Leonie Reynolds, in striking out the case, said that while Mr Fannin’s integrity was intact, she questioned the integrity of the department in the matter.
The prosecution incorrectly suspected a substance was introduced into the cattle to mimic a positive result for TB, hence, in theory, releasing compensation to Mr Fannin.
The judge criticised the investigating team for being “heavy handed” and “less than impeccable” and was angered that evidence emerged deep into the trial that collapsed it.
That evidence related to a separate brucellosis test, which all female cows must undergo.
The department contended Mr Fannin had not sought the mandatory test. However, it emerged that not only had he sought the test, the department had a record of it.

Internal review
The department, according to a spokesperson, instigated an internal review of what happened but is refusing to release it after taking “legal advice”.
Despite the department’s mistaken belief that the cattle had, firstly, been tampered with and, secondly, not been brucellosis tested, they were still released into the food chain after being slaughtered on their order on March 14, 2009.
Brendan Muldowney, Mr Fannin’s solicitor in the case, asked why they had been released into the food chain if they were thought to contain “an unknown substance” and went further.
“Since they were unable to identify the alleged contaminating substance, why did they not consider from the beginning that to prosecute Mr Fannin was both unsafe and unsound?”
After the debacle, the department shelved the “complex” report, which was completed last month, saying that it included “references to other parties, who are not subject to review” and therefore “will not be published”.
The Anglo-Celt has twice asked the department for specifics as to the food chain into which the animals were released and even if they could say whether they were released into the domestic or EU market.
While the department released a statement saying the report’s recommendations were implemented, it twice refused to answer the question on the food chain.
The first part of the statement confirms that senior and legal officers carried out the report, while the second outlined recommendations but adds that the animals were released into the food chain after a vet found them fit for human consumption, despite the suspicions of the investigation team.
“Arising from the review, the report makes a number of recommendations for the future which fall into two categories. The first relates to the Department seeking to better ensure clarity in respect of evidence before the courts through additional training of staff in file preparation, through the provision of additional training to staff in providing evidence as witnesses before the court and in the making available of expert witnesses, independent of the investigation team, to assist the court.
“Secondly, at an investigative level, to seek legal advice as to the appropriateness or otherwise of providing for 'split samples’ be made available to any person being investigated, where samples are taken during the course of an investigation and where this is possible. These recommendations are now being acted upon,” the latter part of the statement reads.
“All animals slaughtered for human consumption are subject to official veterinary examination to determine the safety of their meat. Only meat that is determined to be safe is passed as fit for human consumption and allowed be placed on the market. Unfit meat - be it carcases, part carcases or localised defects/lesions - is destroyed.
“The animals in questions were subjected to appropriate official ante-mortem and post-mortem examination - as is the norm for all animals slaughtered for human consumption. Meat from these animals was determined to be fit for human consumption and released onto the market.”

Civil case
The statement basically confirms that the meat was fine for human consumption after the March 2009 slaughter but still the case went ahead against Mr Fannin, who is now understood to be taking legal advice on a possible case.
The Anglo-Celt again queried the food chain aspect of the case but was told by a spokesperson in the department: “We have nothing further to add to our previous statement.”
Mr Fannin has declined to comment on the matter of the report but after his not guilty verdict described the time since the 2009 botched investigation until his acquittal last November as a “living nightmare” and called for a Garda and EU review.