Man who used live piglet as bait to train greyhounds loses appeal over exclusion

A man who used a live piglet as bait to train greyhounds has lost an appeal aimed at overturning his exclusion from racetracks or coursing events.

Christopher Connolly, of Farney’s Cross, Cappawhite, Co Tipperary, appealed the High Court’s refusal in 2019 to quash a decision by Bord na gCon (Irish Greyhound Board), which regulates greyhound racing in Ireland, to exclude him from events. The Irish Coursing Club (ICC), which regulates coursing, consented to the exclusion order.

In a judgment delivered electronically on Thursday, the three-judge appeal court, comprising Ms Justice Caroline Costello, Ms Justice Ann Power and Mr Justice Brian Murray, unanimously dismissed the appeal.

Arising out of events which occurred when Mr Connolly was living in Australia in 2014, he was subject of a ban imposed by regulatory authorities in the State of Victoria after he was found guilty of using a piglet as live bait at Tooradin Trial Track. The ban followed a probe by the Australian authorities into incidents, which were widely publicised, where piglets and rabbits were used as live bait at that track. Ten others involved in that activity were also banned. Mr Connolly received a lifetime ban, reduced on appeal in 2015 to five years with another five suspended on condition he is of good behaviour.

Mr Connolly returned to Ireland in 2015 and in 2016 he applied to Bord na gCon for a “kennelhand authorisation” which would allow him to work in the industry in which he has been involved for many years. He was refused and appealed to a Bord na gCon control committee which found he was “not a fit and proper person to be certified”.

The appeal committee said there was uncontroverted evidence he had pleaded guilty to three offences in Australia “which were barbaric in nature” and there should be no tolerance of such behaviour.

It accepted Mr Connolly was involved in the Australian incident to a lesser extent than other participants who were treated more severely than him by the Australian regulators.

He brought High Court proceedings against the board and the ICC saying the decision was flawed and should be set aside on grounds including that it was unreasonable and irrational. The High Court rejected his arguments.

In his appeal against that ruling he argued that the investigation conducted by the board was insufficient to allow it make the exclusion order against him. A further ground of his appeal was that the procedures adopted by the board when hearing his case did not satisfy the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.

Giving the Court of Appeal’s decision, Ms Justice Power said she was satisfied Mr Connolly knew the case he had to meet in the context of the investigation conducted by the board into what had occurred in Australia.

On no occasion throughout the process had he or his lawyers indicated to the board he disputed any of the findings by the Australian authorities, at hearings where he was represented, made submissions, and before which he made a recorded plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal was also satisfied Mr Connolly had every opportunity to present his case to the board and was not deprived of his constitutionally protected right to fair procedures in the context of the board’s investigation.