Judge asked to explain drung farmer case comments

THE chairman of a Dail committee is writing to a Circuit Court judge to respond to a senior civil servant’s remarks about criticisms she made of the Department of Agriculture during the failed prosecution of a Co Cavan farmer, writes The Sunday Times’ Justine McCarthy.
John McGuinness, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), is writing to Judge Leonie Reynolds asking if she wishes to respond to comments by Aidan O’Driscoll, the department’s secretary general.
At a Cavan Circuit Court in November 2013, Judge Reynolds said that the department’s investigation of Drung farmer Douglas Fannin had been “heavy-handed” and “less than impeccable”. After questioning the “integrity of the prosecution”, she directed the jury to find Mr Fannin not guilty after eight days of a trial the department brought, falsely alleging the tampering of TB tests.
On June 18, Mr O’Driscoll was asked by Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald to apologise to Mr Fannin.
“I am prepared to apologise for the fact that a judge found it necessary to find that our approach in that one case was heavy-handed but unfortunately, in apologising for that I do not know what I am apologising for,” he said.
“I have apologised for one aspect of it quite clearly, which is that our witness should not have been difficult.”
After the case was struck out by Judge Reynolds, Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney ordered an internal review into the matter, which has never been published and since disbanded the Special Investigations Unit responsible for instigating the prosecution.
The Celt understands that the internal review blames an erroneous line of questioning for the case being struck out.
PAC Chairman John McGuinness will send Judge Reynolds a copy of the report and a transcript for her response.
On March 12, Mr Fannin launched a civil action in the High Court for damages against Agriculture Minister Simon Coveney, the Garda Commissioner, the Irish State and the Attorney General and had previously described the experience as a “living nightmare”.
The case involved the false implication of tampering with a test in order get compensation from the State for infected cattle.
Mr Fannin’s civil action is expected to raise questions about the department’s handling of the case, including why the department allowed slaughtered animals to enter the food chain if it suspected they were injected with an unknown, supposedly 'toxic’ substance.