Appellate Court Adjusts Excessive Sentence in Dangerous Dogs Act Case

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1538
Judgment on


The case of R v Paul Croft (EWCA Crim 1538) offers pertinent insights into the assessment of appropriate sentencing within the framework of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This appellate judgment revisits the sentencing decision made by the Crown Court at Caernarfon concerning an individual whose dog, while dangerously out of control, caused injury. Key themes within this case include the principles of culpability, harm categorization, aggravating factors, and the application of sentencing guidelines.

Key Facts

In this case, Paul Croft pleaded guilty to ownership of a dangerously out-of-control dog resulting in injury in a public place. The incident involved Croft’s Belgian Malinois crossbreed dog attacking a puppy and biting Mr. Cunningham. At the time of this offence, Croft was already within the operational period of a previously suspended sentence. The incident resulted in physical injury to both the puppy and Mr. Cunningham, as well as emotional trauma to the affected persons.

The legal principles analyzed in this appeal primarily relate to the application of the Sentencing Council Guidelines. The initial sentencing placed the offence at culpability category B due to the foreseeable risk that lack of control measures posed, and at harm category 2, due to the injuries inflicted.

Key legal principles include:

  • Culpability and Harm: These are articulated within the Sentencing Council Guidelines, which help in determining the starting point and range for sentences.
  • Aggravating Factors: These encompass prior convictions, the sustained nature of the attack, impairment due to alcohol, injury severity, and the fact that the offence occurred during an operational suspended sentence period.
  • Credit for Guilty Plea: The application of a reduction in the sentence due to the defendant’s early guilty plea is a principle rooted in incentivizing efficient justice procedures and acknowledging admission of guilt.
  • Proportionality of Sentencing: The appeal court assessed the aggravating factors and the sentence’s proportionality within the guideline ranges, ensuring that the punishment aligns adequately with the severity of the offence.


The appellate judgment found the sentence to be manifestly excessive given that the sentencing judge went beyond the 12-month guideline for the offence after a trial. The previous activation of the suspended sentence was factored into the decision. The appeal court decided that the original sentence should have been at the higher end of the guideline range, but not above it.

The sentencing outcome was amended to a ten-month custodial term, which reflects a reduction aligned with the given credit for the guilty plea, from the original 17-month term. Aside from the custodial term adjustment, the remaining aspects of the sentence, including its suspension and ancillary orders, stand as originally determined.


The case of R v Paul Croft serves as a pertinent example of the appellate judiciary’s role in ensuring proportionate sentencing that adheres to established guidelines while weighing the individual circumstances of each case. It underlines the importance of fitting sentences within the operational framework of guideline ranges, and the crucial consideration of aggravating factors, the defendant’s prior record, and the conduct during the commission of the offence. This judgment reinforces the principles of proportionality, fairness, and consistency essential to the integrity of criminal sentencing in the UK legal system.

Related Summaries