Dallinger [2012] EWCA Crim 1284
Summary
In R v Eric Charles Dallinger [2012] EWCA Crim 1284, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for causing a public nuisance contrary to common law.
The appellant had pleaded guilty before magistrates and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court on 6 March 2012. On 10 April 2012, His Honour Judge Newell at Preston Crown Court imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
The appellant normally lived with his wife in a static caravan but was required by the terms of the lease to live elsewhere for some weeks each year. During those weeks his two dogs were boarded with his daughter. On 1 March 2012, police arrested the daughter and attended her home upon learning that a young child had been left there alone. Officers found the appellant’s two dogs at the premises. A specialist dog warden concluded that the animals might be of a prohibited Pitbull Terrier breed, and the dogs were removed to a veterinary surgeon’s premises for examination. The appellant became very disturbed by the seizure of his dogs, telling a probation officer that he lived for the animals. One of the dogs had been ill, which added to his distress. On 2 March the appellant telephoned Police Constable Sumner and stated 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, on 5 March at approximately 7.42am, police began receiving numerous 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 on a Code 1 emergency basis. Police implemented road closures, meaning certain patrols were unavailable for other emergencies and causing serious traffic build-up in both directions. Both northbound and southbound carriageways were closed, with traffic stalled until approximately 9am. Officers arrived at about 7.50am and asked the appellant why he was on the wrong side of the barriers. He replied that it was the only way he would get his dogs back and demanded they be brought to him immediately. Officers spent about a quarter of an hour persuading him to move to the correct side of the barrier, whereupon he was arrested. He stated that if his dogs were not returned he would mount another demonstration. In interview he said that had he been informed whilst on the bridge that his dogs would not be returned, he would have jumped. The cost of the disruption was estimated at more than one million pounds. The appellant held a Heavy Goods Vehicle Licence and must have been fully aware of the impact of such incidents on drivers.
The appellant was aged 51. He had previous convictions from a period of offending between 1980 and 1984, but those were of a very different nature. He committed no offences between 1984 and 2007. In 2007 he committed offences of obtaining benefit by deception, for which he received a community order with unpaid work, which he completed satisfactorily. He had not offended otherwise in recent years.
A pre-sentence report was prepared. The report made clear, as the judge observed, that the dogs had assumed almost a greater importance in the appellant’s life than his family. The appellant claimed not to have realised the impact of his actions on road users, emergency services and in terms of cost. He appeared genuinely regretful, but told the probation officer that if the dogs were deemed to be a banned breed and not returned to him, he would attempt suicide. The report proposed a community penalty with unpaid work.
In passing sentence, Judge Newell noted the appellant’s background and observed that he was to all intents and purposes a decent and honest man. The judge concluded that his reaction was totally extreme, excessive and obsessive. He expressed surprise at such behaviour from someone who was himself a heavy goods vehicle driver and could understand the consequences. The judge noted the impact and cost of the affair, accepted the appellant’s genuine remorse, gave credit for the early guilty plea and noted the recommendation for a community penalty. However, the judge stated that he had to consider the public at large and the message that a community sentence would send to others who might have legitimate or farcical grievances with police or authorities, who might think it appropriate to bring attention to themselves by similar means. The judge concluded that the appropriate starting point before credit for the guilty plea was nine months’ imprisonment, reduced to six months with full credit for the early plea.
Mr King, on behalf of the appellant, advanced a number of factors in written and oral submissions: the background circumstances, the genuine engagement and distress regarding the 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. From those bases Mr King argued that even if a community sentence was not appropriate, any prison sentence should have been suspended.
The court, giving judgment through Irwin J, carefully considered those arguments but rejected them. The court held that this was 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 to conclude that this offending was so serious that it could only properly be met by an immediate custodial sentence.
In short, the Court of Appeal held that an immediate custodial sentence of six months was the only appropriate disposal for a public nuisance of this magnitude, given the substantial disruption, cost and danger to the public, and the need to deter similar conduct by others.
The appellant had pleaded guilty before magistrates and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court on 6 March 2012. On 10 April 2012, His Honour Judge Newell at Preston Crown Court imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
The appellant normally lived with his wife in a static caravan but was required by the terms of the lease to live elsewhere for some weeks each year. During those weeks his two dogs were boarded with his daughter. On 1 March 2012, police arrested the daughter and attended her home upon learning that a young child had been left there alone. Officers found the appellant’s two dogs at the premises. A specialist dog warden concluded that the animals might be of a prohibited Pitbull Terrier breed, and the dogs were removed to a veterinary surgeon’s premises for examination. The appellant became very disturbed by the seizure of his dogs, telling a probation officer that he lived for the animals. One of the dogs had been ill, which added to his distress. On 2 March the appellant telephoned Police Constable Sumner and stated 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, on 5 March at approximately 7.42am, police began receiving numerous 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 on a Code 1 emergency basis. Police implemented road closures, meaning certain patrols were unavailable for other emergencies and causing serious traffic build-up in both directions. Both northbound and southbound carriageways were closed, with traffic stalled until approximately 9am. Officers arrived at about 7.50am and asked the appellant why he was on the wrong side of the barriers. He replied that it was the only way he would get his dogs back and demanded they be brought to him immediately. Officers spent about a quarter of an hour persuading him to move to the correct side of the barrier, whereupon he was arrested. He stated that if his dogs were not returned he would mount another demonstration. In interview he said that had he been informed whilst on the bridge that his dogs would not be returned, he would have jumped. The cost of the disruption was estimated at more than one million pounds. The appellant held a Heavy Goods Vehicle Licence and must have been fully aware of the impact of such incidents on drivers.
The appellant was aged 51. He had previous convictions from a period of offending between 1980 and 1984, but those were of a very different nature. He committed no offences between 1984 and 2007. In 2007 he committed offences of obtaining benefit by deception, for which he received a community order with unpaid work, which he completed satisfactorily. He had not offended otherwise in recent years.
A pre-sentence report was prepared. The report made clear, as the judge observed, that the dogs had assumed almost a greater importance in the appellant’s life than his family. The appellant claimed not to have realised the impact of his actions on road users, emergency services and in terms of cost. He appeared genuinely regretful, but told the probation officer that if the dogs were deemed to be a banned breed and not returned to him, he would attempt suicide. The report proposed a community penalty with unpaid work.
In passing sentence, Judge Newell noted the appellant’s background and observed that he was to all intents and purposes a decent and honest man. The judge concluded that his reaction was totally extreme, excessive and obsessive. He expressed surprise at such behaviour from someone who was himself a heavy goods vehicle driver and could understand the consequences. The judge noted the impact and cost of the affair, accepted the appellant’s genuine remorse, gave credit for the early guilty plea and noted the recommendation for a community penalty. However, the judge stated that he had to consider the public at large and the message that a community sentence would send to others who might have legitimate or farcical grievances with police or authorities, who might think it appropriate to bring attention to themselves by similar means. The judge concluded that the appropriate starting point before credit for the guilty plea was nine months’ imprisonment, reduced to six months with full credit for the early plea.
Mr King, on behalf of the appellant, advanced a number of factors in written and oral submissions: the background circumstances, the genuine engagement and distress regarding the 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. From those bases Mr King argued that even if a community sentence was not appropriate, any prison sentence should have been suspended.
The court, giving judgment through Irwin J, carefully considered those arguments but rejected them. The court held that this was 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 to conclude that this offending was so serious that it could only properly be met by an immediate custodial sentence.
In short, the Court of Appeal held that an immediate custodial sentence of six months was the only appropriate disposal for a public nuisance of this magnitude, given the substantial disruption, cost and danger to the public, and the need to deter similar conduct by others.