Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant pleaded guilty on 20 September 2024 at the Crown Court in Portsmouth to two offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 involving two dogs, each causing injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. On 30 January 2025, the Applicant was sentenced by Judge Ashworth to 27 months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts and disqualified from having custody of a dog for 10 years. A co-defendant, the Applicant's partner, pleaded guilty to the same offences and received a suspended sentence of 12 months with rehabilitation and unpaid work requirements.
The offences arose from an incident on 18 August 2023, when two Rottweiler dogs, off lead and unattended, attacked an elderly man, the Victim, who was walking his dog near his home in Bognor Regis. The attack lasted approximately 11 minutes and resulted in the Victim sustaining life-threatening injuries requiring multiple amputations and a prolonged hospital stay. The dogs had escaped from the garden where they were left unsecured while the co-defendant was at work and the Applicant was attending a hospital appointment.
The sentencing court had before it reports, victim statements, and CCTV footage. Prior to the offence, there had been multiple reports and official communications regarding the dogs' behaviour and the need to keep them under control. The Applicant had received warnings from police and local authority officials but failed to adequately secure the dogs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the Applicant's culpability as Category A by treating the warnings and advice received as "official warnings" or "orders" concerning the dogs.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider if an immediate custodial sentence was necessary, particularly in light of the impact on the Applicant's partner and their five young children.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The warnings and advice given to the Applicant did not constitute official warnings or orders, particularly as they did not address the dogs being off the property or on a lead during walks.
- The Applicant and her partner believed the fencing was sufficient to contain the dogs, despite the Applicant acknowledging the dogs could jump the fence.
- The sentencing judge failed to adequately consider whether immediate custody was necessary, especially given the significant impact on the Applicant's family, including five young children.
- The Applicant was remorseful, as evidenced in the pre-sentence report, and there was a submission that the sentencing guideline should not be followed if contrary to the interests of justice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, [2013] 1 CrAppR (S) 116 |
Principles relating to the right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR in sentencing. |
The court considered the principles from Petherick in balancing the impact of the sentence on the Applicant's family, acknowledging the importance of family life but ultimately finding the sentence appropriate. |
| R v Thompson [2024] EWCA Crim 1038 |
Application of Petherick principles and consideration of new information on appeal sentencing. |
The court referenced Thompson to illustrate that each case depends on its facts and that even with new information, immediate custody may still be unavoidable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the warnings and advice given to the Applicant, concluding that the term "official warnings" should be applied practically and with common sense rather than strictly as a statutory term. The Applicant had multiple occasions where authorities, including police and local officials, conveyed the need to control the dogs. The judge was therefore entitled to classify the culpability as Category 1A, reflecting high culpability due to failure to respond to these official warnings.
The court noted the sentencing guideline starting point of three years' custody and acknowledged the 25% reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in the 27-month sentence. It was inevitable that the sentence would exceed the two-year threshold, precluding suspension under the guidelines.
Regarding the impact on the Applicant's family, the court took into account recent information about the difficulties faced by the Applicant's partner and children but found no basis to conclude the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The court emphasized that each case depends on its facts and that the sentencing court's decision was within a proper exercise of discretion.
Finally, the court addressed an administrative issue concerning a victim surcharge incorrectly recorded in the Crown Court records. It clarified that the sentencing judge did not impose a surcharge on the Applicant and that it could not be imposed at this stage due to statutory constraints.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The decision means the original custodial sentence of 27 months stands, as does the 10-year disqualification from dog custody. No new precedent was established; the court affirmed the proper application of sentencing guidelines and the discretionary judgment of the sentencing judge in balancing culpability, harm, and mitigating factors including family impact.