Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

If one were to provide in law a non-rebuttable presumption that the owner or controller of land on which there is an animal that is subject to proceedings is the owner of the animal, the provision would be unconstitutional. However, the Bill makes provision for the person who owns or controls the land to rebut any such presumption. One must return to the content of the section, namely, the presumption of ownership. When a case is taken it is necessary to be able to make certain assumptions in respect of the animal, for example, where it came from and who owned it. Provided the person who owns the land is given an opportunity to clarify or rebut such assumptions and provide proof to that effect, I am comfortable with the section.

While I am willing to try to improve the section, any change must achieve the objective set down in the current wording and must not simply provide that proceedings must be against the owner of an animal. The whole point is that in seeking to prove ownership, one must have a starting point. It is not unreasonable for such a starting point to be a presumption, in the case of an animal that is found to have been damaged or cruelly treated, that the animal is owned by the person who is in charge of the land, unless he or she can prove otherwise. To do anything else would create unnecessary ambiguity and make it more difficult to make a case.

The onus of proof will not be excessively difficult for landowners. If a farmer has one elderly, lame and emaciated horse among a number of horses or cattle which are in good condition, it will be clear that the condition of the emaciated horse is not consistent with the way in which he manages livestock. Moreover, he will not have papers for the animal or a record of having it on the farm. He will also be able to swear an affidavit that the horse is not his. It is likely that considerable evidence will be available to the owner of the land to allow him to make a case that the animal does not belong to him. While I understand the issue being raised by the Senator, the provision is unlikely to result in unfair prosecutions in which people who do not own animals are taken to court for abuses they have not committed. I will ascertain whether the wording can be improved.