Sign up to our free newsletter for the top North Wales stories sent straight to your e-mail Sign up now! Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A North Wales farmer has been told he is not going to have his firearms licence renewed after threatening to shoot a dog and pouring a yogurt over his wife’s head.

Huw Haydn Roberts, 55, told Mold Crown Court he thought he was within his rights if he had shot the dog which was running free on one of his silage fields, despite the fact that there was no livestock in it at the time.

Roberts, of Oak Mount Farm, Windy Hill, Cefn-y-Bedd between Mold and Wrexham, said the dog was not under control and dog faeces could contain a bacteria which, if it contaminated the silage and was fed to his livestock, could cause them to abort.

“I didn’t threaten the man.

“I thought I was right, I know now I was not,” said Mr Roberts, who was appealing against the decision of the Chief Constable, to revoke his certificate.

Barrister Simon Rogers, representing North Wales Police, said Mr Roberts had a certificate from March 2011 which was due to expire in March next year which enabled him to keep two 12-bore shotguns at his farm.

But Alan Davies, force firearms and explosives manager, had recommended revoking the licence in view of four separate alleged incidents involving the farmer, including the threat to the dog walker.

Judge Rhys Rowlands, sitting with magistrates, rejected Mr Roberts’ appeal and ordered him to pay £1,500 costs.

The judge said: “A decision was taken by Chief Superintendent Simon Humphreys to revoke the shotgun certificate to prevent real risk or danger to public safety or the peace.”

To do that the police had relied on four incidents, including the dog walker, said Judge Rowlands.

Another involved the farmer and his wife.

It was alleged she had been having difficulty coping and had admitted spitting in his food and throwing a slipper at him.

“He grabbed her and pushed a yogurt on her head.

“Undoubtedly there was provocation but it was bizarre behaviour and not rational,” the judge said.

“The second it involved someone with his dog crossing a silage field, not on a footpath.

“His reaction was to lose his temper and shout and swear at him. He accepts that he told the man he would shoot his dog if he did not keep it under control and he did not think anything of it at the time.

“What would have been the situation if the appellant had been at the time with his gun and he thought he would have been right to use the gun?”

Another incident involving a neighbour alleged to have thrown wood onto his field and Mr Roberts throwing it back over the fence.

But the judge said the court took no account of that incident because the facts had never been tested.

The fourth incident involved four teenage youths who Mr Roberts claimed were guilty of “loutish” behaviour, leaving a gate open and risking his 102 cattle getting onto a main road.

Mr Roberts told the court he had shouted to the youths that he wanted a word with them because if the cattle had got out it could have caused “mayhem.”

The incident involving his wife did not involve violence, he had never hit anyone or threatened violence and his wife was still living with him at the farm. He had simply restrained her.

Mr Roberts said he did not think the police could make a balanced judgement when he said they only knew 50 per cent of the facts – they did not know his side.

The court heard that no proceedings arose from the domestic incident because his wife would not make a complaint.

Mr Rogers said the incident with the dog walker was resolved by restorative justice, and the incident with the boys ended in a community resolution and an apology.

But it was the police view that the possession of shot guns by Mr Roberts posed an increased risk to the public, the certificate had been revoked and the weapons seized.