R v Jennifer Clare Hopkins

For sentencing an offence involving a dog attack, culpability may fall within Category 1B where there is a lack of effective safety or control measures in circumstances in which an incident was reasonably foreseeable. One Category B factor can determine the category; the absence of other Category B factors does not require Category C.

Safety measures must address the particular risk. General or inadequate warnings, or delivery arrangements that do not protect visitors, may be insufficient. Where the sentencing judge has made evidence-based findings, balanced aggravating and mitigating features, and accounted for an early guilty plea, an appellate court will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive. Serious injury may justify crossing the custody threshold despite strong personal mitigation, with suspension remaining available.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Swansea to being the owner of a person in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control, contrary to sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. On 4 September 2025, His Honour Judge Rees imposed nine months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 150 hours' unpaid work, a surcharge and £10,000 compensation.

She appealed with permission, contending that the offence was Category C rather than culpability level B under the Sentencing Council guidelines and that imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of her mitigation. The central issue was whether the safety and control measures at the property were sufficient, and whether the judge was entitled to find the incident reasonably foreseeable.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The court accepted that other Category B factors, including animal ill-treatment and failure to intervene, were absent. The issue was whether the safety and control measures were effective.
2. The attack was reasonably foreseeable. The dogs were large livestock-guarding dogs, and it was foreseeable that they might attack a visitor attempting to deliver a package. There was insufficient signage warning of dangerous dogs and no adequate indication that deliveries should be left outside the perimeter fence.
3. Safety and control measures must address the particular risk identified. The small ground-level warning and the general warning about a dog did not adequately protect people visiting the property. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the measures were insufficient to prevent a reasonably foreseeable incident.
4. The presence of one Category B factor did not require the offending to be placed in Category C. The judge was entitled to place it in Category 1B under the guidelines.
5. The judge was also entitled to balance the aggravating and mitigating features so that the guideline starting point remained the finishing point, subject to the reduction for the early guilty plea. He gave appropriate credit for the appellant's good character, mitigation, remedial steps and low risk of reoffending, while taking account of the serious, disfiguring injury and the victim's public-service role.
6. The resulting nine-month sentence, suspended for 12 months with ancillary orders, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 1083 , the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Swansea — On 4 September 2025, His Honour Judge Rees sentenced the appellant to nine months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months, with unpaid work, a surcharge and compensation.