A DEPARTMENT of Agriculture investigator broke off an interview with a Tipperary farmer because the man was getting close to the point of violence, Nenagh District Court heard yesterday.
Mr Declan Holmes, a member of the Department's special investigations squad, said he had been questioning Mr Stanley Mounsey, Clashnevin, Nenagh, in May 1992 on the whereabouts of 16 animals which had tested positive for illegal animal growth promoters.
Mr Mounsey, described as a substantial beef farmer who fattens animals for other farmers, has denied 67 summons alleging breaches of the law on animal drugs in 1992 and 1994.
Mr Holmes said animals on the accused's farm had tested positive in January 1992 and he had gone back in May to brand the animals so they could not be moved or sold into the food chain.
When he asked the accused about the animals on the farm, Mr Mounsey told him to "f... off".
Mr Holmes said when he asked where the animals were, he got the same reply and was told he could "take a look over the f. . . ing ditch if you want".
"I decided that Mr Mounsey was getting close to the point of violence and I instructed my colleague to withdraw because in those circumstances I could not put questions to Mr Mounsey," he told Judge Michael Reilly at a special sitting of the court.
He told Mr David Sutton BL, for the defendant, that while he knew Mr Mounsey ran a fattening operation, he doubted if he allowed open access to other farmers who might leave illegal material or feed animals.
Mr Holmes said he visited the defendant's farm again on January 13th 1994 and inspected cattle and took samples from them for analysis. He served a prohibition order under which animals could not be moved from the farm.
A search of a farm rented by the accused in Co Offaly on the same day uncovered hormone cartridges, plastic containers and bottles.
Mr Michael Hayes, a Department veterinary superintendent, denied the Department's sampling system is grievously flawed.
He had told the court that a urine sample taken from the cattle on the farm had been sent to the Equine Centre for screening. He said this had not breached the integrity of the urine samples as it was only a minuscule part of the total sample on which the State laboratory based its test for drugs. He agreed he had not mentioned the sub sample in his statement of evidence.
The case continues today.