Supreme Court refuses to halt trial of vet

THE SUPREME Court has refused to halt the trial of a veterinary surgeon on charges of illegally issuing movement certificates for animals in the wake of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak nine years ago.

Dermot Sparrow (66) had claimed a long-term heart condition meant his life would be at risk due to the stress of a trial.

In 2007, the District Court was told Mr Sparrow had significant coronary artery disease with complications including a rare condition in adult males, associated with intense stress, where the internal lining of the heart had torn. His cardiologist said the risk of sudden death was very high.

The District Court heard Mr Sparrow drives a car, continues to practise as a vet in a limited way, attends court in his capacity as a vet, and had instructed lawyers in various proceedings relating to the charges against him.

On the basis of all the evidence, District Judge William Hamill said the necessary factors to halt a trial were not present and the High Court last year upheld that ruling.

Yesterday, rejecting Mr Sparrow’s appeal against that High Court decision, Mrs Justice Susan Denham said there was no doubt Mr Sparrow has had a serious heart condition since 1992. But the fact that a person has heart disease, that stress is bad for such persons and that attending court is stressful does not mean such a person should not be prosecuted.

Mr Sparrow’s claim was based on the “misconception” that once a doctor gave medical evidence of heart disease and a serious risk of a fatal incident if he gave instructions during his trial, there was no choice but to halt the trial.

It was only in exceptional circumstances such as a serious risk of an unfair trial that a court would intervene to stop it. The court had to consider all the evidence, not just medical, and the requirement for a judicial decision was not “trumped” by medical evidence on behalf of one side.

In this case, there was other evidence, including that Mr Sparrow drives, continues to practise as a vet in a limited way, attends court as a vet and instructed lawyers.

Mr Sparrow had failed to show the necessary exceptional circumstances to stop his trial, the judge ruled. By bringing two judicial review applications to prevent his trial, he had postponed it by years and that must have been “an additional stressful factor” for him. It was time to let the trial proceed and the trial judge would have full jurisdiction to ensure it was fair.

Mr Sparrow was charged in 2003 with two counts of illegally granting certificates under regulations governing the movement of animals following the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001. The offences allegedly occurred at his veterinary practice in Jigginstown, Naas, Kildare, on April 9th, 2001.

During a visit to his practice by Department of Agriculture officials on April 18th that year, he suffered a heart attack. He later took two sets of High Court judicial review proceedings aimed at stopping his trial, but failed.