Stricter Legislation to Protect Livestock from Dogs

Stricter legislation comes into force today to protect livestock from dogs.

UK-wide dog attacks cost farmers £1.95 million in 2025, according to research by insurer NFU Mutual. This represents a ten percent increase on the previous year, with farmers in the Midlands being particularly hard hit.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock)(Amendment) Act 2025 significantly updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

The Act, which applies to England and Wales, broadens the scope of the offence by clarifying the difference between "attacking" and "worrying" livestock.

Worrying includes behaviour such as chasing animals or causing them stress or panic, and it makes clear that physical injury is not required - fear or distress alone can be enough. The scope of worrying has been broadened to include dogs "being at large" - e.g. merely present in a field or enclosure, with livestock, when not on a lead or otherwise under close control.

It expands the definition of livestock to include additional animals, such as camelids like llamas and alpacas, reflecting modern farming practices.

The geographical scope of the offence is widened so that incidents on roads and public paths, not just in fields, are also covered.

The Act significantly strengthens police powers. Officers can seize and detain dogs suspected of involvement, enter premises, and collect evidence such as DNA samples and bite impressions. Dogs can be held during investigations and legal proceedings.

Penalties are tougher than before. The previous cap on fines has been removed, allowing courts to impose unlimited fines in serious cases. Courts can also require offenders to pay the costs associated with seizing and keeping the dog.

A new defence is introduced for dog owners where the dog was under someone else's control without the owner's consent, for example if it had been taken or stolen.

Updates: Stalking Solicitor Sentenced & Pervy School Caretaker Jailed

As you might have noticed, I've been away for a couple of weeks.

To ease myself back into blogging, I thought I'd bring you updates to two stories previously reported here on Magistrates' Blog.

Stalking Solicitor Sentenced

Litigious solicitor Andrew Jonathan Milne, 63, was convicted of stalking blogger and court observer Daniel Cloake on Tuesday, 10th February 2026.

Milne developed a rather unhealthy interest in Mr Cloake, sending him 120 emails, two voicemail messages and visiting his home.

On one occasion Milne pushed a note through Mr Cloake's door, saying "After you are bankrupt if you agree to be my total sex slave I will let you live in the garage".

The disgraced lawyer was sentenced at Stratford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 10th March 2026.

He was made subject to a 24 month community order, with 200 hours' unpaid work and up to 20 days' rehabilitation activity requirement.

He was also ordered to pay £850 in compensation, £650 towards prosecution costs and £114 surcharge.

District Judge Lisa Towell also imposed a seven year restraining order, which prohibits Milne from any contact, either directly or indirectly, with Mr Cloake.

True to form Milne has already indicated his intention to appeal.

Pervy School Caretaker Jailed

A Nottingham school caretaker has been jailed for spying on young girls in the changing rooms.

Joshua Snow, 28, of Bemrose Drive, Radcliffe-on-Trent, admitted two offences of voyeurism when he appeared at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 8th January 2025.

Magistrates decided that their sentencing powers were insufficient, so sent the matter to Nottingham Crown Court for sentencing on Tuesday, 10th March 2026.

Snow was previously employed as the caretaker of The West Bridgford School, Loughborough Road, Nottingham, where the offences took place.

Observant students noticed a mobile phone propped in the corner of the girls' changing room. They reported their concerns to the headteacher, who reviewed CCTV footage showing Snow plant the device.

Snow was sentenced to 9 months' custody.

He was also made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Hereford Voyeur Recorded Women Using Toilet

A Hereford man secretly recorded women using the toilet and getting dressed.

Adrian Hooper, 36, of Ryelands Street, Hereford, admitted six offences of voyeurism when he appeared at Hereford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 24th February 2026.

Voyeurism is an offence under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment. It should be noted that at the time Hooper's particular offences were committed, the maximum sentence on summary conviction was 26 weeks' custody.

Hooper recorded eight different women at several unnamed locations between 2008 and 2021. No further details are provided, so it is not clear how he was able to install the recording devices.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Hooper's offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, for reasons that have again gone unreported, they decided it was appropriate to suspend the custodial term.

Hooper was sentenced to 26 weeks' in custody suspended for 24 months, with the requirements that he completes 250 hours' unpaid work and up to 25 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay £3,000 in compensation, £154 surcharge and £154 towards prosecution costs.

Hooper was also made subject to the notification requirements of the sex offenders register for a period of 7 years.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Government Introduces Landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill

The Government has introduced its landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill.

The Bill, which had its first reading on Tuesday (25/2/2026), takes its inspiration from Sir Brian Leveson's "once in a generation" review of the criminal courts system in England and Wales.

You can view the Bill as introduced here. Alternatively the Ministry of Justice has produced a factsheet summarising its key clauses.

Below I briefly summarise those directly affecting the work of the Magistrates' Court.

1. Removal of right to elect Crown Court trial:

The opening clause of the Bill seeks to remove the right of a defendant accused of an either way offence to elect a Crown Court trial (trial on indictment).

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court determines whether or not an either way offence is suitable for either trial there (summary trial) or trial on indictment.

If the Magistrates' Court declines jurisdiction, then the matter will proceed to the Crown Court for trial on indictment. Alternatively, if the Magistrates' Court accepts jurisdiction then the defendant has the final choice between summary trial or trial on indictment.

The Bill seeks to remove this final choice. If the Magistrates' Court determines that an offence is suitable for summary trial, then that is how the matter will proceed. The defendant will no longer have the option of electing trial on indictment.

2. Increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court:

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court can impose a maximum sentence of 12 months in custody for an either way offence.

The Bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2020 so that in future the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court up to a maximum of either 18 or 24 months in custody.

3. Removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court:

Under current rules anyone convicted of an offence at the Magistrates' Court has an automatic right of appeal against conviction and/or sentence to the Crown Court. The current appeal process, as described in an earlier article, involves a complete rehearing of the case as presented at the Magistrates' Court.

The Bill will amend the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 so that an appeal can only be brought with leave of the Crown Court. Instead of a complete rehearing, an appeal will be a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted. A judge of the Crown Court will preside over the appeal hearing and there will no longer be any involvement of Magistrates.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.