Result !

[Alex]

A police officer who repeatedly punched a puppy with brutal force when the little dog defecated in his house has been sacked.  After the attack, the puppy could be heard crying in pain and unable to get to its feet
Video emerged of Sgt Martin Dunn, who worked in Greater Manchester Police's specialist operations branch, attacking the five-month-old springer spaniel in March 2021.
Harrowing footage of the attack was played to Leeds Magistrates' Court in April 2021 and Dunn was heard to shout: "You little b***ard!"
The footage was also shared online and reported to the force.
A vet told the court in a report that when he shouted at Frank, the puppy reacted in "extreme fear."
Dunn admitted gross misconduct at an independent disciplinary hearing on Tuesday and was dismissed without notice.

                    

https://uk-database.org/2023/05/12/martin-dunn-meltham/

[Ashy]

Bit stupid to film it! Do police recruits have to pass a stupid test these days?

[Raven]

I HATE people who Ill treat animals   but especially puppies. In a fair and just court the sentence would and always should be, a dose of whatever they dished out to the poor animal.

[klondike]

That isn't the sort of person the police should be employing. There is something definitely wrong with people who can behave in that way. Good to hear they booted him out.

[Michael Rolls]

I HATE people who Ill treat animals   but especially puppies. In a fair and just court the sentence would and always should be, a dose of whatever they dished out to the poor animal.

Hear, hear - bloody swine

[dextrous63]

Why only a 5 year ban from keeping animals?  

[Michael Rolls]

should have been a life ban

[Scrumpy]

What a bastard.. This makes me want to cry.. I hope his face is posted all over the place.. I hope someone beats him up.. I also hope that his family, friends and neighbours hate him...
I hope a dangerous dog goes for his throat..
  That is how much I hate him.. 

[Raven]

What a bastard.. This makes me want to cry.. I hope his face is posted all over the place.. I hope someone beats him up.. I also hope that his family, friends and neighbours hate him...
I hope a dangerous dog goes for his throat..
  That is how much I hate him..

Exactly, loathsome brute should have had jail time. Why are the courts so easy on animal abusers? CASSANDRA?

[Michael Rolls]

far, too easily on animal abusers, and for that matter, child abusers

[morty]

It was appalling to watch ... over and above most cruelty cases. The courts are never ever tough enough.

It's the only time the media is a useful tool ... soneone, somewhere will know him and nail him.

[Cassandra]

The current sentencing guideline for animal cruelty, applies to offences contrary to the following sections of the Animal Welfare Act 2006: section 4 (causing unnecessary suffering), section 8 (involvement in an animal fight) and section 9 (breach of duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare).

These guidelines were last revised in 2017 and until 2021, the offences it covered were summary only, triable in magistrates' courts and subject to a maximum penalty therefore of only 6 months' in custody at the maximum!

In 2021, Parliament passed the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act, which increased the maximum sentence for specific offences under the 2006 Act from six months to five years' custody and made these 'either way offences', meaning they could be heard in magistrates' courts or the Crown Court.
Following the 2021 Act and the increase in maximum penalties, the Council issued interim guidance for sentencing offences committed on or after 29 June 2021. The following offences were impacted by the change:

Causing unnecessary suffering (section 4, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
Carrying out a non-exempted mutilation (section 5, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
Docking the tail of a dog except where permitted (section 6(1) and 6(2), Animal Welfare Act 2006);
Administering a poison to an animal (section 7, Animal Welfare Act 2006); and
Involvement in an animal fight (section 8, Animal Welfare Act 2006).

Sentencing guidelines must be followed, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interest of justice to do so in all the circumstances of a particular case.
The Sentencing Council was established by Parliament to be an independent body, but accountable to Parliament for its work which is scrutinised by the Justice Select Committee.

As regards this disgusting ex Police Officer's attitude to a tiny dependent creature specifically: lets say he'd received say a 6 month custodial sentence.

Immediately an appeal would be launched in mitigation, claiming it was a first offence,

No permanent physical injury to the tiny dog was proven,

He was probably convicted under section 9 (breach of duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare), a lower offence and also section 4 (causing unnecessary suffering). and therefore to avoid an appeal given an 'entry level' sentence.

Sentencing guidelines (as above referred) are issued to judges upon legislative changes and are treated differently, according to the perception of the individual judiciary applying them.

To me, there should be no upper limit on sentencing for Animal Cruelty and its profile should be elevated considerably. The legislation which extends to Wild Life offences such as 'Livestock Worrying' and 'Banned Dogs' etc etc as a Crime, is extensive but rarely are maximum sentences issued, across the overall classification of consideration. In my opinion we have an overall responsibility for the care of creatures, just as we do each other.

Thankfully, this vile man has been released as a Police Officer (well done) and hopefully will find employment elsewhere difficult to achieve this side of China! He should never be allowed to own an animal again and I would have given him a lifetime ban to this end.

In my day, because these offences were for the 'lower courts' only (Magistrates) see above, I never heard any as a beak, but did prosecute them in my younger days, many times 'Pro bono' (no charges) much to the chagrin of my father, who was head of chambers!

Defence lawyers always attempt to circumnavigate Magistrates or today now (post '21)  Judges, known to be animal lovers for hearing these type of offences and the establishment too, fearing the costs of an appeal, rarely let them arbitrate such cases.

Thats the way the law in reality is administered in the UK today and explains the reasoning for insufficient sentencing over the broad spectrum of prosecution ...

[Michael Rolls]

thanks for that, Cassndra.

[Raven]

Yes Thanks for explaining Cass, Wasn't having a go at you personally, it's just a subject that puts me on my high horse, and I don't mean the Clydesdales.

[dextrous63]

Thanks Cassandra.