Richards, R. v

In sentencing for the aggravated offence of keeping a dangerously out-of-control dog, the consequences of the injury are an important factor. Serious injury may justify immediate custody, but the sentence must also reflect mitigation, including youth, genuine remorse and a guilty plea entered at the first opportunity.

Where the offender is 19, a custodial term must be one of detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment.

The appellant pleaded guilty before the Magistrates’ Court to two aggravated offences under section 3(1)(d) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. He was committed to the Crown Court at Sheffield for sentence.

Two dogs owned by him escaped and jointly attacked a postman. The victim sustained serious injuries, required hospital treatment and surgery, and was permanently scarred. The Recorder imposed concurrent terms of nine months’ imprisonment and disqualified the appellant from keeping a dog for seven years.

The appellant, aged 19 and of previous good character, appealed the custodial term with leave of the single judge. The issue was whether nine months’ immediate custody was excessive in light of the seriousness of the harm, his mitigation and his early guilty pleas.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The concurrent nine-month terms were quashed and replaced with concurrent terms of four months’ detention in a young offender institution. The seven-year disqualification from keeping a dog remained in force.
2. The Court accepted that immediate custody was necessary. The attack was prolonged and vicious, and caused deep lacerations, puncture wounds, hospitalisation, operations, likely reduced mobility and permanent scarring.
3. Following the sentencing assistance in R v Cox [2004] 2 Cr App R 287, the nature of the consequences for the injured person was an important sentencing factor for the aggravated offence. Those consequences were serious here.
4. Nevertheless, nine months was unnecessary. The appellant was 19, had no relevant previous convictions, was genuinely and deeply remorseful, and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. A four-month custodial term properly reflected both the gravity of the injuries and that mitigation.
5. Because the appellant was 19, the custodial sentence should have been detention, rather than imprisonment. There was no order for recovery of defence costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing concurrent nine-month terms of imprisonment and substituting concurrent four-month terms of detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 22 April 2008, imposed concurrent nine-month terms of imprisonment and a seven-year disqualification from keeping a dog.
• Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to two aggravated offences under section 3(1)(d) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.