1.
All defendants had previous convictions, but none that were deemed relevant by the judge. In interview, Thomas Carthy accepted full responsibility. A Probation Officer’s report said he did not believe the animals were neglected, beyond a lack of shelter. He was remorseful and apologetic, and accepted the animals were not cared for as they should have been. The report also said he lacked stability in his life. He attend KEY but sporadically, he has a support worker in Ossory Youth. William Carthy pleaded guilty on the day the trial was scheduled to start. According to a Probation Report he accepted the dogs were not living in the best conditions but expressed a wish to have the animals back. He accepted the dogs were not chipped or licensed, but he said they were vaccinated.He said he thought it was up to the council to provide kennels, but he knows now he misunderstood this. William Carthy suffers from health issues and has no history of employment.The judge said Mr Carthy’s attitude that the dogs should not have been removed was of some concern to him. Michael Carthy was cooperative when interviewed but asserted he did the best he could and understood the council was to assist. The council does not share this understanding, the judge noted. Mr Carthy expressed remorse to the Probation Officer but they were of the opinion that this was not genuine. It was also their opinion that Michael Carthy was slow to accept responsibility for the neglect and poor treatment of the animals.He was deemed to be of high risk of reoffending. The men all had a history of poor engagement with the Probation Service, but defence barristers argued in court that this was a factor of their lifestyles and not a lack of willingness to engage, which the judge said ameliorated his concern. Defence barrister for William Carthy, Adrian O’Higgins, said his client is married with three children.Mr Carthy accepted the generality of the charges but said feed was always available. He now accepts they had too many animals and they were