The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an Appeal against Sentence from Swansea Crown Court following a Guilty plea for an offence under sections 3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, commenting on the inadequacies of measures put in place by owners of potentially dangerous animals at their properties.
In the case of Hopkins [2026] EWCA Crim 1083, a delivery driver had been making a delivery to an address near Whitland, Carmarthenshire when she was attacked by the Defendant's dogs. The driver had not delivered to the Defendant's address before and when she arrived she found a gate with a piece of string holding it closed; she saw no warning signs about dogs. The driver knocked on the door and three large waist-height Carpathian Mountain dogs rushed out at her and all three bit her on various parts of her body. She later required surgery to some of her tendons and a follow up operation. The Defendant, when she heard the commotion, attended to the driver and took her to hospital. At interview, the Defendant stated she had 29 dogs and had been running an animal sanctuary. She said the dogs were trained, she believed there to be adequate measures in place (including a box for deliveries) and said that no other delivery driver had attempted to do what the victim in this case had done.
Following her Guilty plea at the Plea and Trial Preparation hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months on condition that she undertake 150 hours unpaid work along with payment of £10,000 in compensation. The Judge afforded the Defendant credit for her plea, the solitary nature of the incident, her having installed permanent fencing, her previous clean character. She appealed the sentence on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Defendant argued that there was evidence of safety measures in place - such as temporary fencing - and that there was a lack of foreseeability of such an incident occurring.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. Stacey J, handing down judgment alongside Lewis LJ and Steyn J, explained that the court agreed with the Judge at first instance and found small ground-level "no entry" and "Beware of the dog" to be wholly insufficient: "The safety measures must be directed to the risk that existed — in this case, people visiting the property." Though the Defendant had certainly not ill-treated the dogs and had gone to the driver's aid after the fact, it was entirely foreseeable that the dogs would attack a visitor to the house trying to deliver a package and there was insufficient signage to warn of dangerous dogs and no indication to leave deliveries outside the perimeter fence. Accordingly, it could not fall within the lowest category of culpability in the Sentencing Council's Sentencing Guidelines.
The case is an example to dog owners of the need to consider the potential damage such animals can do to lawful visitors to their property and the standards expected where the risk of serious harm arises. It is also a reminder of the significance the court places upon incidences where offences occur against those providing a public service such as delivery drivers.
Harry Dickens of Chambers prosecuted the case at first instance at the Crown Court.