Stephen McGuigan was found guilty this week
Stephen and Layla McGuigan leaving court in Liverpool(Image: Liverpool Echo)
A Merseyside judge said the two word answer he received from the owner of 14 barking dogs was “an indication of his attitude” towards others. Stephen McGuigan was found guilty this week of breaching a noise abatement notice alongside his wife Layla.
The couple, of St David Road, Eastham, Wirral, both appeared in Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, December 10 and were each found guilty by District Judge Paul Healey of four charges related to the contravention or failure to comply with a noise abatement notice relating to their noisy dogs. The couple, who denied the charges, claimed they had taken steps to address concerns and accused those raising issues of unconscious bias and lies.
The case was brought forward by the local authority who relied on evidence from Wirral Council technical officer Paul Bratley, recordings from a device placed in one home, as well as two neighbours Barry Heayns and Annette Owen. Judge Healey sided with the council and neighbours telling the McGuigans to pay more than £7,000.
The defence’s case relied upon evidence suggesting other dogs in the area were barking too, as well as testimony from the McGuigans and neighbour Julie Lawrenson. Ms Lawrenson told the court a lot of people had dogs in the area and the noise was not excessive.
In his defence, Mr McGuigan said the kennels in the garden had been soundproofed with heated floors and fitted with Amazon Alexa devices to play music. He told the court: “Those dogs are never left alone. Either myself or my wife are with them 24 hours a day,” adding the dogs were always spoken to if there was noise and he sleeps downstairs.
The dad added: “We have not had a day out or a holiday in this country together. That is how much their actions have affected my family.”
He also claimed neighbours had banged pots and blown whistles to startle the dogs and told the court they would be moving soon to a rented farmhouse because of the issues.
At one point, he was asked why he had so many dogs to which Mr McGuigan responded: “Why not?” In coming to his decision, Judge Healey said this “was an indication of his attitude to the impact on others,” telling the court: “I feel he was somewhat defensive and dismissive when questioned.”
In coming to his decision, Judge Healey told the court it was inevitable cases such as this had a significant background and when people are living so close to each other, neighbours would be affected by noise from those next door.
However he said the council had determined the noise was excessive, even if this was disputed by the McGuigans, and he did not believe effective steps had been taken to address the issues.
He said: “In my view, the situation very much remains the same. There were a very large number of dogs at the property when the notice was issued and there were a large number of dogs at the property at the dates of the alleged issues.”
The judge said the McGuigans’ claims that witnesses were wrong about where the noise was coming from were not credible and accepted the testimony of Mr Bratley, Mr Heayns, and Mrs Owen. He described the number of dogs at the property as “exceptional”.
Sentencing the couple, the court fined them separately £300 for each offence, a £480 victim surcharge, and £2,000 in costs to the council. This brings the total to be paid by the couple to £7,360.
He said the couple’s response “could be described as a deliberate and flagrant disregard” of the council’s notice, adding the couple did not “reflect on the impact the dogs were having on neighbours”.
Judge Healey told the court: “It has had a real impact on their quality of life. I think what is considerable is they really can’t escape from it. They have the house. It is where they should feel safe and secure.”