Preston dog owner who kicked his pet in the street loses his appeal as judge throws out bid to overturn animal ban
A prolific criminal who claims he kicked his pet dog because he was 'dazed' has lost his appeal to quash his ban on keeping animals.
Carl Richardson, 36, of Rose Lane, Holme Slack, Preston, claimed the three year disqualification and a deprivation order keeping his two pet dogs from his care was "manifestly excessive".
Defence lawyer Peter Killen argued that because despite Richardson having 84 convictions for 137 offences, none of them were for offences against animals, and so it was excessive to impose the ban - which takes Missy, seven and Pepper, four, from his care.
Judge Philip Parry, sitting with two magistrates, was told a PC arriving at the scene on August 23, 2017, saw the defendant with blood over his face, staggering about in the road and waving his arms before kicking Pepper.
Preston Magistrates’ Court previously heard on the day in question Richardson had got drunk at his grandad’s funeral and was later left bleeding when a man assaulted him near his home.
On what should have been the day of his trial, Richardson admitted failing to ensure Pepper's needs to be kept safe from harm were met - on the basis he was dazed after the violent attack moments earlier.He was given a Â£50 fine, Â£300 costs and an Â£85 surcharge.He took his case to Preston's Sessions House Court to appeal the sentence.
The court heard the police officer who witnessed the incident had made a statement claiming Richardson drop kicked Pepper "like a rugby ball", causing him to fly across the road, and had made remarks he kicked the animal because it had not bitten his assailants "like it was supposed to".
The judge was critical of the decision not to allow the police officer to give evidence on the day of what should have been Richardson's trial, before his basis of plea was accepted.
He said: "We reject this application.
" The defendant deliberately kicked the dog on the street, whether it's his dog or someone else's is irrelevant."
He pointed out the penalty would have been "far more severe" if the officer's evidence was admitted.
Richardson, who mumbled as the decision was given, must now pay Â£250 more in costs on top of his original sentence.