Grand National Trainer Sentenced to Three Years for Violent Assault on Elderly Dog Walker
A prominent horse trainer with connections to the Grand National has been sentenced to three years in prison following a brutal attack on a pensioner who was walking his dog on the trainer's land. Richard Evan Rhys Williams, widely known as Evan Williams, 55, was convicted after a trial at Cardiff Crown Court for repeatedly striking 72-year-old Martin Dandridge with a hockey stick during the assault in December 2024.
Details of the Assault and Injuries Sustained
The incident occurred on December 4, 2024, in Llancarfan, Vale of Glamorgan, south Wales. Mr Dandridge, a resident of Swindon, Wiltshire, suffered a fractured arm and multiple other injuries as a result of the attack. He had been staying at a holiday cottage near Williams' training centre with his wife to be close to their daughter in Cardiff, who had recently given birth.
During the evening walk, Mr Dandridge placed torches on himself and his cockerpoo dog, Gulliver, due to the darkness. Williams' family spotted the lights on their property and mistakenly believed Mr Dandridge was engaged in lamping, a practice where bright lights are used to locate animals like rabbits and foxes, which had reportedly occurred previously on the land.
Court Proceedings and Judicial Remarks
Williams denied a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but a unanimous jury convicted him after just 90 minutes of deliberations following the trial in March. Recorder Angharad Price, who presided over the case, sentenced Williams to three years in prison, describing the offence as 'appalling'.
'I know that you fully understand that he is still living with the impact of your actions on that day 16 months ago,' the judge stated. She emphasized that Williams had a 'choice' on that day to either confront Mr Dandridge himself or wait for nearby police to attend. 'When you gave evidence at trial, you talked very passionately of your champion racehorses and their security, you talked of protecting them from harm,' she said. 'You also talked about protecting your family from harm. However, that protection should not have come at Mr Dandridge’s cost.'
Background and Mitigating Factors
The court heard that six weeks prior to the assault, Williams had disturbed poachers on his land and was threatened with a shotgun. Recorder Price acknowledged that this earlier incident must have been 'very frightening' but stressed that 'it is never acceptable to take the law into your own hands. This sentence will be a lesson to you that it is always better to call the police if you think a crime is being committed.'
David Elias KC, representing Williams, argued that his client's reaction was 'against the background of that terrifying previous incident'. He presented an 'unprecedented number' of character references in support of Williams, including 500 received by his office and others sent directly to the judge. These references included statements from Williams' wife, Cath, who has taken over the licence at his yard.
Mr Elias highlighted Williams' contributions to the community, noting that he 'has worked all his life, he has built a business from scratch which has become very important to the wider community in the Vale of Glamorgan.' He warned that the business was likely to fail without Williams at the helm, potentially causing wider knock-on effects on employment and other local businesses.
Victim Impact and Lasting Consequences
In a victim's personal statement read to the court, Mr Dandridge described himself as previously a healthy man who enjoyed golf, DIY, and metal detecting. 'Sadly, because of the assault and what has followed, I don’t feel like the same person I was before,' he said. He reported lasting problems with his left arm and hand, experiencing pain during everyday tasks such as opening jars and using tools.
Mr Dandridge also detailed the impact on his mental health, suffering from anxiety, disturbed sleep, and intrusive thoughts since the attack. 'There has not been a single day since the assault that I have not thought about it,' he added. 'What happened that day and its consequences have had a profound impact on my life.'
Defence Claims and Trial Evidence
During the trial, Williams insisted he did not injure Mr Dandridge and claimed the pensioner was hurt after being pulled over on rough terrain by his dog and falling into a drainage hole. However, the jury rejected this defence, finding him guilty based on the evidence presented.
The judge concluded that Williams was 'driven by heightened fear, hyper vigilance, and a distorted threat perception' at the time of the assault. The case underscores the severe legal repercussions of taking vigilantism into one's own hands, even in situations perceived as threatening.
