EFFORTS to establish ownership of cattle which had tested positive for illegal animal growth promoters, on lands owned by a Tipperary farmer, were frustrated, Nenagh Court heard yesterday.
In the second day of the hearing against Nenagh farmer Mr Stanley Mounsey, the prosecution told Judge Michael Reilly that throughout investigations in 1992 and 1994, Mr Mounsey refused to give information in relation to the ownership of the 16 cattle in question.
Mr Mounsey, of Clashnevin Upper, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, faces 67 charges following separate inspections on his farm by Department of Agriculture officers.
Mr Mounsey has denied all charges, which include possession of banned growth promoters, failing to furnish information, administering banned substances and moving animals when a prohibition order was in place.
The court heard from Mr Joseph Carroll, a veterinary surgeon with the Department of Agriculture, that none of the cattle which tested positive for banned substances in 1994 were among 744 animals tested for TB and brucellosis some months later.
He gave evidence of informing Mr Mounsey shortly after the test that his herd was restricted and told him that none of the animals found with hormones were present.
Mr Mounsey replied that the whereabouts of the cattle was a matter for their owners and "would probably be sorted out by the legal people".
Mr David Sutton, defending, submitted that if farmers had 24 hour access to his premises, there was no proof it was Mr Mounsey who was in possession of the banned substances.
There were no forensic tests carried out to establish he handled the items and there was merely a suggestion that he was in possession of the banned substances.
Ms Nuala Butler, prosecuting, rejected claims that no attempt was made to prove ownership of cattle. During investigations in 1992 and 1994, Mr Mounsey refused to give information regarding ownership of cattle on his land.
He also refused to supply or surrender the cattle identity cards which would have established ownership, she added.
Regarding the charge of possession of banned substances, she said that as samples were taken from lands which he controlled, there was an inference that he was responsible for the administration of these substances.
The case continues today.