Hopkins, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns an appeal against sentence in a criminal case arising from a dog attack at the Appellant’s property. The Appellant pleaded guilty to being the owner or person in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control, contrary to section 3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [Para 22]

She was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 150 hours’ unpaid work, a surcharge, and £10,000 compensation. [Para 23] With leave, she appealed on the single ground that the sentencing judge wrongly treated the offence as Culpability B rather than Category C under the Sentencing Council guidelines, making custody manifestly excessive in light of the mitigation. [Para 24]

The victim, a delivery driver, arrived at the Appellant’s property, opened a gate held shut with string, and was attacked by three large dogs that inflicted serious bite injuries to her hand, hip, and buttock. [Para 25][Para 26] She required hospital treatment, surgery, follow-up care, and later suffered scarring, restricted movement, and significant personal and financial consequences, including loss of work and difficulty managing her farm. [Para 28][Para 29][Para 31][Para 32][Para 33][Para 34] The Appellant said in interview that she ran an animal sanctuary, had 29 dogs, believed warning signs and delivery arrangements were in place, and had no previous convictions or police involvement. [Para 37][Para 38]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in classifying the offence as Category 1B/Culpability B rather than Category C under the Sentencing Council guidelines. [Para 24][Para 39][Para 41][Para 48][Para 49]
2. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because custody should not have been imposed, given the Appellant’s mitigation and the asserted safety measures at the property. [Para 24][Para 42][Para 43][Para 44][Para 45]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant relied on temporary fencing at the rural property, the absence of earlier incidents despite previous deliveries, and the practice of other delivery drivers leaving parcels outside the fence, which she said showed existing safety measures and lack of foreseeability consistent with Category C. [Para 44][Para 45]
• She also relied on extensive mitigation, including her blameless life, strong employment record, kindness to animals, self-funded sanctuary work, low risk of reoffending, and the delay in the proceedings. [Para 38][Para 42]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that none of the other Category B factors were present, but identified a live issue about whether the safety measures at the property were effective enough to reduce culpability. [Para 47]

It held that the Appellant’s large livestock-guarding dogs made it entirely foreseeable that a visitor attempting to deliver a package could be attacked, and that the warnings in place were inadequate because there was insufficient signage and no direction that deliveries should be left outside the perimeter fence. [Para 48][Para 49][Para 50][Para 51][Para 52]

The court agreed that the judge was entitled to find medium culpability under Category 1B because the safety or control measures were insufficient to prevent a reasonably foreseeable incident. [Para 39][Para 40][Para 41][Para 48][Para 49][Para 52]

It also held that the judge properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the severity of the injuries, the victim’s public-service role, the Appellant’s personal mitigation, and the delay, and was entitled to impose a suspended sentence after reducing for the guilty plea. [Para 42][Para 43][Para 53]

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. [Para 53] The sentence remained undisturbed, including the suspended custodial term and the ancillary orders, and the decision applied the sentencing guidelines to the facts without announcing any broader new principle. [Para 23][Para 43][Para 53]