Case 202500057248 - CPN - Appellant DWAustin - Witness statement and skeleton argument

Timothy,

The Court has asked for a 'witness statement and skeleton argument' - my offering is given below.

I must first remark how displeased I am after this morning's court attendance, and not allowed to make my appeal - my antagonist, your colleague Sophie Kendrick, was present, sitting in court, presumably in receipt of a taxpayer-funded salary, making no contribution! That means I'm down by at least one round, being not paid for the session, before proceedings have begun! The British certainly know how to make an idiot of civilised man, and they're effectively at war with Russia!

In terms of the Requirements on Page One of the CPN, I'm not sure regarding the first as I'm just keen to report junk as it appears - perhaps too keen! Regarding the second Requirement, I wouldn't encourage any person to threaten any dog as the hound is not likely to understand and I wouldn't encourage any person to harm any dog as there are animal welfare considerations to be weighed; the Schedule of Incidents on Page Two shouldn't be taken literally but I would need evidence, possibly acceptable in photographic form, before monies can be exchanged - veterinary surgeons use techniques that 'despatch' dogs regularly and painlessly. I must also observe that the official chasing, perhaps vexatiously, the "individual" named in the CPN (yours truly) is Sophie Kendrick - a known cynophile!

My grounds, in summary, are:

1. My conduct has not had a "detrimental effect on the quality of life in the locality" - not everyone in the neighbourhood appreciates the activities of the local dogs and the guy to whom I sent the text, even, is not himself a dog-owner; my efforts may, quietly, be appreciated.

2. The conduct specified "is not unreasonable" - the Council is largely pro-dog, allowing these pets where they shouldn't (in shared accommodation) and will not take appropriate action (even refusing mediation); the stench can be 'quite powerful', the urine kills off swathes of the communal lawns, the barking renders civilised man a nervous wreck and the mess is all-over!

Before expanding these grounds, I must also remark that there is a possibility that my neighbour (157 High Street DY9 8LT) may be acting, with the cognisance of Sophie Kendrick, in a provocative or antagonistic manner, his uncle, the official tenant, was arrested a year ago, taken away by armed police - but his nephew now occupies 157, with the same dog, which latter is toileted underneath my kitchen window! Though the Police do not all approve of this disgusting activity, a Policeman or associate established the address at which the car I happened to be driving was registered (after I had been out campaigning on the 'dog issue', quite recently) charged up a drive in Norton, Stourbridge, and assaulted my brother!!!

With more detail:

In terms of the Requirements on Page One of the CPN, I'm not sure regarding the first as I'm just keen to report junk as it appears - perhaps too keen! (Evidence of a list of recent 'notifications' to the Council is given as an attachment). I suspect that the Council is adversely, perhaps spitefully, reacting to my ideas as to how they should handle their waste; after all, the cheapest means would be to collect waste every financial year - clearly not acceptable. As a recent example regarding the reporting of 'environmental issues' - an apparent old bench, with other junk, has been present to the rear of Love Lane apartments for years, despite many reports; this was spotted again, 2nd March 2025, during drain-clearance. Note a clean and tidy environment, according to all agencies, has a positive effect on anti-social behaviour. Given the amount of junk left on the Borough's streets and greenspaces, the Council seems ignorant of any concept of Duty of Care and any concept of public service (senior officials may be guilty of misconduct in a public office). I would like, given the chance, to prevail upon the court to request, advise or direct the Council to liaise with this concerned resident on this important issue.

Regarding the second Requirement, I wouldn't encourage any person to threaten any dog as the hound is not likely to understand and I wouldn't encourage any person to harm any dog as there are animal welfare considerations to be weighed; clearly, it is unacceptable that my neighbour's dog continues to annoy through its barking and toileting habits - a breach of any tenancy agreement and, particularly with regard to being taken onto the High Street, or any adjacent street, to perform its toilet, is indecent behaviour on the part of the owner and a breach of common law, which Police do not contest. The Schedule of Incidents on Page Two shouldn't be taken literally but I would need evidence, possibly acceptable in photographic form, before monies can be exchanged - veterinary surgeons use techniques that 'despatch' dogs regularly and painlessly. Again, I would like to prevail upon the court to request, advise or direct the Council to liaise with this concerned resident to resolve this critical matter, including establishing means of mediation with my neighbour.

Please note:

1. Police recently visited and did not challenge the argument of improper, indecent, behaviour, on the part of my neighbour - a breach of common law (with unlimited penalty).

2. Police have also condemned as unreasonable dogs defecating, in particular, underneath my kitchen window.

3. Pet dogs should be on-leash in a populous area (according to Police) and alongside roads (according to the Highway Code).

4. Dogs are not admitted to Council high-rise apartments; apparently, dogs, even cats, that is, no pets, were allowed when these apartments (that is, at and around my own address, rising to several storeys in places) were first commissioned.

5. Annoyance of residents by pets is a breach of any local tenancy agreement.

6. Should Magistrates on the Bench first declare any affinity for The Dog, with possible recusals?

7. Dogs are not natural - any barking can also detract from blackbird song, the robins and our tawny (known as Towny here in The Lye) - as expressed recently on social media, a system of 'modern apartheid' is required, involving, for example, dog-free zones in parks.

8. Also making the remark that we are 'effectively at war with Russia' on social media, quite recently, I remarked that local dog-walkers were both wasting time and abusing each other's streets - I suggested that they should occupy themselves by assisting in the building of tanks!

9. Having noted that I consider the local Council, an arm of Government, as essentially pro-dog, the Police, who also have a 'substantial' pro-dog component, have not only failed to investigate the assault on my brother (claiming no official file of my complaint exists) but have also apparently failed to interview another neighbour ('Geoffrey') who again indulged assault, over my stance on The Dog, and threatened my life.

10. Local folk lore suggests that a man must retain sympathy for The Dog in order not to rile women and to retain the possibility of their 'cooperation' - this has relevance as your colleague M Kendrick (originally bringing this action, described as my 'antagonist') may well declare as female (and is a dog-owner); this issue has been raised, even, by the BBC's Woman's Hour, but I argued that a link between The Dog and a woman's sexuality is impossible - dogs are bred and not 'natural'. It seems I have won that argument, at  least.

11. Please note a very recent incident of apparent fouling in Connops Way (by my close neighbour's dog at 157) followed by a barking incident the next morning, on High Street, whilst yours was on his knees fixing a post, Protecting my Community! Note that another doggie neighbour raised objections to my litter-picking of the High Street, on two occasions, which I reported as harassment - but I was the one arrested, apparently at the Council's insistence, with still no meaningful reaction to my complaints, or an explanation, from the Council.

12. Please also note that we have an issue with religious belief threatening the safety of communities, worldwide - from disputes in and around Gaza/Israel, to my own neighbourhood, at least potentially, here in The Lye; my position is that we must do our best to promote arguments that no God exists, with one starting point being arguments for evolution - The Dog is bred, often for nefarious purposes (such as foxhunting or even fighting other dogs) and the clearest symbol of humanity's abuse of its own (natural) environment, including our wildlife.

13. The Black Country, despite some fine and fascinating attractions, including its heritage, remains a simple dog toilet.

14. Dieu et Mon Droit, under one translation "God is my Right", might allow King Charles not only to consider himself with a divine right to rule, but to bring his dogs (Jack Russell terriers, originally bred to chase-out foxes that have gone to ground (as in another neighbour's annoying dog)) into Buckingham Palace, a public building - I have met with no response on this either from HM government or the legislature.

15. If only in the interests of democracy, could the Court persuade my very experienced ward representative, Councillor Lowe, to get in touch?

David Austin
5th March 2025