Dublin Zoo has paid €5,000 to charities and has been spared a criminal conviction over an incident in which a two-year-old girl was mauled by a Brazilian tapir.
Judge John O’Neill was given confirmation at Dublin District Court that the zoo had complied with his order in October to donate €2,500 to the Jack and Jill Foundation and the same amount to Laura Lynn Children’s Hospice.
Finalising the case, he applied the Probation Offenders Act, which spares the zoo a fine and possible criminal conviction.
The toddler was set upon by the 225kg animal, named Rio, during a supervised “close encounter” experience in the tapir enclosure on August 8th last year. Photos of the two-and-a-half year-old’s horrific injuries were published by the Irish Medical Journal in November.
The girl suffered stomach and arm injuries in the incident and had to receive treatment from surgeons at Temple Street Children’s Hospital, while her mother also required medical attention.
In October, the Zoological Society of Ireland, which was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA), admitted a breakdown in communication was to blame for a 2006 risk assessment not being heeded. The assessment had stated that the public should only be allowed to get close to harmless animals like stick-insects.
Dublin District Court heard the normally mild-mannered female tapir Rio had been placid but reacted aggressively when the child “let out a screech.”
Judge O’Neill heard there had never been any incident like this in the zoo’s 180-year history and it was humiliated, apologetic and embarrassed, and has implemented new safety measures.
It had pleaded guilty to a single count contrary to Section 19.4 of the 2005 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act for failing to implement a risk assessment.
Defence counsel Shay Fleming had described the chances of the incident occurring as “one in a million”.
HSA inspector Mairéad Wall had told prosecution counsel Antonia Boyle that zoo-keeper Susan O’Brien had done a favour for a friend by letting a family with four young children have a close encounter with an animal.
It had been intended they would get to pet a giraffe but plans changed because the giraffe had already been fed and after Ms O’Brien’s team leader agreed they were taken to the tapir habitat instead.
Rio was described by the zoo-keeper to Ms Wall as “chilled out, lazy” and during the close encounter, the animal, which had given birth to a calf a month beforehand, had been docile.
The group consisted of four adults as well as four children aged from two to ten years.
Ms Wall had agreed that during the five-minute visit the tapir had been lying on its side with its eyes rolled back in contentment as it was petted. But, she added, “The child let out a screech and at that the animal was on its feet, proceeded towards the child, picked the child up in its mouth and shook it violently”.
Ms Wall was satisfied the zoo-keeper was highly qualified and experienced. However, the zoo-keeper had not seen the risk assessment stating close encounters should only be with harmless animals such as stick insects, rabbits or frogs.
The director of the zoo, Leo Oosterweghel, had been unaware that close encounter visits had been happening about once a month for the past number of years, Ms Wall said.
Ms Wall had agreed with Mr Fleming that the visits no longer happen and that safety measures, including a higher fence, in relation to the tapir enclosure have been implemented.
Mr Fleming had said the zoo was a charitable organisation which operated to high standards and had regular safety meetings. It was also involved in conservation and education programmes and has a million visitors a year.
It was a “once off” incident which the zoo, one of the oldest in the world, had publicly mentioned in its own annual report, the barrister had said in pleas for leniency.
“The society has indicated to the world that this has happened and that it is humiliated and very embarrassed, and has put protective measures in place to ensure not happen again,” he had said.
He also asked the judge to note that Ms O’Brien who had let the family in, following a request from a friend, did so for educational purposes and blames herself for what happened.
Judge O’Neill has said he was certain the zoo-keeper was experienced and qualified and he believed she would not have brought the children into the habitat if she had thought there was any danger.
He had said he was concerned at the lack of communication about the risk assessment, but he noted the zoo’s staff were people to whom their work “is not just a job for them, it is a way of life” and he took into account the fact that the animal reacted because it felt threatened.
The zoo had also paid prosecution costs of €2,953.