Evan Williams denies taking law into his own hands, court hears

Trainer Evan Williams, who is accused of assaulting a dog walker who was on his land late at night, has denied taking the law into his own hands.

Williams, 54, is accused of repeatedly striking Martin Dandridge, 72, with a hockey stick during an alleged night-time assault.

Mr Dandridge, from Swindon, suffered injuries, including a fractured arm, in the incident on Williams’ land at Llancarfan, Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, on December 4 2024.

Cardiff Crown Court has heard that Mr Dandridge was staying at a holiday cottage near to Williams’ racehorse training centre.

Mr Dandridge took his cockerpoo Gulliver for a walk in a paddock that was part of the stables and because it was dark was using a torch.

The court has previously heard that Williams’ property has had past incidents of fly-grazing – where animals are left on land without permission – as well as hare coursing and poaching.

The jury heard Williams’ family spotted the lights on their land and believed Mr Dandridge was lamping, where people use bright lights to find animals such as rabbits and foxes, often with a dog.

Williams told the court he did not injure Mr Dandridge and maintained he was hurt after being pulled over on the rough terrain by his out of control dog and had fallen into a drainage hole.

The father-of-three told the court: “I am not exaggerating that terrain. It is only a hazard if you are not aware of the gallops and what they’re used for.

“Those gallops are only dangerous if you should not be there.

“Then they are treacherous, and unfortunately we found that they can be treacherous if you’re the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, doing the wrong type of thing.”

Williams denied carrying a hockey stick and said he had a lead rein, which he had taken out of his truck to assist with the dog.

“It was the dog who is not in control, as Mr Dandridge has stated. His evidence was it was the dog taking Mr Dandridge for a walk,” Williams said.

“If we hadn’t acted in the way we had, Mr Dandridge could have been on his own, hit his head, and we could be looking at serious, serious, serious death.

“If you hit your head in those situations, I would say, that I actually stopped potentially more damage happening.

“I would disagree with what you say that I was responsible.”

William Bebb, prosecuting, asked Williams if he was the hero, and he replied: “I’m no hero.

“I’m only saying that Mr Dandridge’s unfortunate lack of control of his dog caused his injury.”

Mr Bebb suggested Williams’ account of an out of control dog was “nonsense”.

The defendant replied: “Walking a dog on a highway, or on a footpath, or in a park, as long as they are properly secured, with a properly trained person.

“But a dog walking its owner, in an environment it has never been in before, doing what it wants to do, revved up, is a severe hazard with countryside animals.”

Mr Bebb suggested: “You were filled with rage due to the nature of the background you had with lampers.

“I suggest that you began to swing down with that hockey stick with some force.

“Whether a broken bone or a wound, you wanted to teach those lampers a lesson. I suggest you struck him repeatedly, swearing and shouting as you did.

“You swung that hockey stick with such force it connected with his arm and that blow broke his arm.”

Williams replied: “No. I disagree.”

Mr Bebb went on: “Such was the single-mindedness of you, not waiting for the police, passing onto the gallops, you didn’t even register what this person was saying as you approached or as you attacked.

“He was telling you, ‘Stop, stop, stop’, and that he was walking his dog. You were shouting and swearing at him and telling him he was trespassing.”

Williams replied: “I suggest that he didn’t get those injuries from a hockey stick. I didn’t have a hockey stick. I did not cause any injuries to this man.

“There was no strike from me.”

Mr Bebb said: “You thought you could talk your way out of this situation, didn’t you? You thought on your land, it was your law, didn’t you?”

He responded: “No sir.”

Williams denies a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and an alternative charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The trial was adjourned until Monday.