Court told of attack on search and rescue volunteer and his dog by gang of teens

Newtownards Youth Court also heard that as Ryan Gray was on the ground, trying to protect his face and head with his hands, he could see kicks being aimed at his dog Max as well.

His police statement outlined that Max was yelping, so “I knew that they connected.”

Initially, four defendants had been charged with assault and affray arising from the incident on Bangor High Street on 27 March this year.

Charges against a 13-year-old boy were withdrawn for a Diversionary Youth Conference, but proceedings continued against the other three, two boys aged 13 and 15 and a 16-year-old girl.

The boys had admitted causing actual bodily harm to Mr Gray, while the girl admitted the lesser offence of common assault.

The contested hearing on Tuesday proceeded on charges of affray faced by all three, as well as an offence of ABH against the girl.

The evidence forming the basis of the charges was largely agreed, and District Judge Amanda Brady, sitting with two lay magistrates, heard that the victim and Max were walking past the old courthouse when he saw a group of teenagers giving “a member of the public a hard time.”

“He said ‘lads, have a little respect’ or words to that effect, and that seemed to trigger what then happened,” Judge Brady told the court.

Prosecuting counsel Sarah Minford played CCTV footage from two of the bars in Bangor city centre, along with footage recorded on a mobile phone and supplied to police by representatives of a group known as “Bangor, past, present and future.”

Reading from Mr Gray’s statement, Miss Minford outlined how he told police the crowd “gathered around us” and seemed to double in size as they followed him and Max.

As they started closing in, “I knew that they were going to attack us” and his statement outlined that the boy who had the charges withdrawn, “was stirring up the crowd.”

“The next thing I knew I was punched and kicked” and having gone to ground, he was kicked to the head “a number of times.”

“I was holding Max, he is a search and rescue dog, and I could see kicks going to Max and I could hear him yelping and knew that they connected,” Mr Gray told police.

Initially, the defendants had been charged with causing unnecessary suffering to Max, but the PPS withdrew that charge at an earlier stage.

Turning back to the victim’s statement, Mr Gray said he managed to get up but was knocked down again, where he was further assaulted.

“I was trying to cover my face and head with my arms but they just kept coming; it felt like it was never going to stop and they were all shouting ‘get him’,” said the statement.

The search and rescue volunteer told police he feared that if he didn’t get up, “they were going to kill me.”

Having got up and walked up the street, the mob followed behind, and Mr Gray was attacked again before another member of the public intervened and told them to stop, “and they seemed to listen.”

Video footage was played to the court, and it laid bare the violence and aggressive shouts which were directed at Mr Gray and his dog, with expletive-laden calls of “f****** get him… get him!”

At one point, having let go of Max’s lead, the victim was punched to the ground between two vehicles and while he is on all fours, a male delivers a kick to his head.

Towards the end, with Mr Gray’s back against a car, the 16-year-old girl launched a punch and a kick at him.

As the 15-year-old boy was remonstrating with a Good Samaritan trying to help, Mr Gray pulled him back, but that only resulted in him being kicked and punched to the ground again.

Miss Minford told the court that, having attended hospital, Mr Gray was found to have sustained a broken nose, chipped tooth, bruising and “whiplash-type injuries” to his neck.

After the incident, Max, Mr Gray recounted in his statement, “didn’t want to go outside and just is not himself.”

None of the defendants chose to give evidence, and their barristers confirmed that each of them had been advised that the court could draw adverse inferences, if appropriate, from their silence.

The test for an offence of affray is whether two or more people are fighting, and in circumstances where it would “cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety.”

The defence counsel argued that the test for affray was not made out, and that the case could be properly met by the admissions to assault.

They submitted that the video footage supported the contention that members of the public who were in the area at the time, were not put in fear.

As Miss Minford highlighted, however, the test for affray was entirely objective and it was up to a tribunal of fact to decide whether people witnessing the fight, if they were of a reasonably firm character, “would be terrified” for their safety.

“There is absolutely no doubt that what occurred was really horrible,” prosecution counsel suggested, emphasising that, “it was nasty and it was prolonged as it moved up the road.”

Delivering the panel’s verdicts, Judge Brady said the panel had watched the footage multiple times and were satisfied that the test for affray had been made out.

In addition to convicting all three of affray, the judge said it was “quite clear” to the panel that the 16-year-old girl was guilty of causing actual bodily harm by way of joint enterprise.

Addressing the defendants, Judge Brady illustrated the seriousness of the offence in that when prosecuted in the Crown Court, affray carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Describing it as “an absolutely disgraceful incident,” she adjourned passing sentence so that the Probation Board can compile pre-sentence reports on each of the defendants.

Releasing them on bail, Judge Brady said she would deal with the case on 8 December.