Dallinger [2012] EWCA Crim 1284
Having pleaded guilty before magistrates, the appellant was committed for sentence in respect of the single offence of causing a public nuisance, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
The appellant had cause to board his two dogs with his daughter. Following an arrest of the appellant’s daughter police attended at her home because they learned that a young child had been left there alone. When they arrived at the premises they also found the appellant’s two dogs, who were removed as it was thought they were of a prohibited Pitbull Terrier breed. The appellant was very disturbed at the seizure of his dogs and subsequently telephoned the police stating that he would “lean over the railings of a motorway bridge” if he could not find out what was happening with his dogs.
Three days later, the police began to receive a host of reports from the public about a man on the wrong side of the barriers of a bridge above the M6 motorway. All patrols were sent out to that destination on a “Code 1”, with lights flashing and sirens sounding. The police also implemented road closures, which meant that certain patrols were unavailable to attend any other emergency incident and that there was a serious build-up of traffic in both directions along the motorway. Both the northbound and the southbound carriageways were closed. The cost of the disruption arising from these events was estimated in evidence to the court at more than £1 million.
The judge concluded that the appropriate starting point before credit for the guilty plea would have been a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, and, giving full credit for the early plea that had been tendered, passed the sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant put forward a number of factors: the background circumstances, the genuine engagement and distress with the position of the appellant’s dogs, the very early plea, the appellant’s remorse, the recommendations in the pre-sentence report, and the steps taken following the offence to deal properly with his situation and that of his dogs. It was argued that, even if a community sentence was not appropriate, any prison sentence should have been suspended.
The court rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal. Held: “This is a case where the impact on the public was notable and considerable. The judge was entirely right to emphasise the prospective impact of any sentence which did not consist of an immediate prison sentence. He was right to predict the potential effect as a signal of such an approach. He was entirely right, in our judgment, to conclude that this offending was so serious that it could only properly be met by an immediate custodial sentence.”