A man who abused his neighbours for seven years after he couldn’t stop his dogs from barking has narrowly avoided a prison sentence. John Laveric, 48, was given a dog ban over the noise in what was previously described as “one of the worst cases ever”.
However, Laveric remained the owner of his pets Wilma, Daphne, Tia and Tormand. This forced the residents of nearby properties to take drastic measures, including sleeping in their cars and wearing earmuffs when in their own gardens.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that complaints about the dogs poured in from residents of Eric Street in Widnes in 2017, resulting in Laveric being served a noise nuisance notice by Halton Borough Council. However, the problem persisted and he was subsequently convicted of breaching the notice in 2018, the ECHO reports.
READ MORE: He hit her again, and again, and again. Then he killed her
Robert Cline, prosecuting, explained how this earned him a criminal behaviour order from the magistrates, requiring him to remove the four presa canario dogs from the property within seven days and banning him from keeping dogs at the address for two years. Laveric then moved “almost immediately” to a house on Pit Lane in the city.
The local authority began receiving more complaints from neighbours in this street within four days of the imposition of the CBO, which resulted in him being issued with a new noise abatement notice. Again the barking continued and the suspect was prosecuted for breaching the notice.
This led to Laveric being given a second Criminal Behaviour Order in November 2022, banning him from keeping dogs on either of the two properties or anywhere within the Halton Borough. The Liverpool ECHO reported at the time that complaints had been made against him by 11 neighbouring properties over the course of three years, with his dogs being captured on a staggering 1,645 occasions within a 20-minute period on a single date.
However, he ignored the court order and kept the four dogs – which “continued to bark incessantly” – on both Eric Street and Pit Lane until last month. Laveric then falsely claimed that he had transferred ownership of his pets to his mother Christine Laveric, who was reportedly “in such poor physical health that she cannot be held responsible for these dogs,” and a man named Jason White.
The court heard that a neighbour on Eric Street was forced to sleep in her car during work breaks because of dogs that “barked all day and night”, while an 86-year-old resident of Pit Lane wore ear protection when she spent time in her garden. Another homeowner, aged 74, was meanwhile considering moving and a woman in her 70s said she felt “trapped in her home” and decided not to retire because working was her “only escape from the noise”.
Mr. Cline added: “The defendant has deliberately, we say, manipulated the situation and attempted to circumvent the order by moving property. The defendant sees the order as something to be circumvented.
“The prosecution says this is an outright sham, with the suspect planning to take a photo where he is not the owner of the dogs. This suspect simply cannot be trusted to comply with an order.
“The suspect plans to continue to have dogs in the future. There is a theme with this man, who cannot help himself because of whatever personality traits he may have. It is fitting to say that there has been a point where enough is enough.”
Laveric has 10 previous convictions for 20 offences – including drugs, criminal damage, assault and breaching court orders. Ben Berkson, defending, told the court: “Christine Laveric is in a terrible state of health.
“The suspect is her only remaining family member. The caregiving responsibilities he has for her are significant in terms of her medication and her ability to feed herself.
“These are dogs that have had a significant positive impact on the suspect’s life. Daphne and Tormand were raised by the suspect and survived from a very poor litter of 12.
“Wilma has been with Christine Laveric for a while. Walking the dogs has helped the suspect with issues such as anxiety. It was an escape from his psychological problems. He has owned dogs since 1986. He has been a dog owner and dog lover for a long time.
“He is very aware of the powers of the court today. That has been a beneficial experience for him. The defendant is incredibly concerned about the fact that he is going into custody today as a result of these convictions. The defendant is more concerned about the welfare of his mother than his own welfare.
“I have seen a clear movement in the suspect away from frustrating the order, circumventing the order and the motives put forward by the Public Prosecution Service, to someone who now wants to think more about his mother than about himself. She needs him and wants him to be there.
“It’s not about the dogs anymore. It’s about him being there in the twilight of her life. He’s emotional in the dock, as he should be. This is a man who can rehabilitate himself.”
Laveric admitted two counts of breaching a criminal behaviour order. He was seen with his head in his hands, wiping away tears and making the sign of the cross and looking up at the ceiling in the dock during the hearing before being given a 22-month prison sentence suspended for two years.
Judge Gary Woodhall ordered the four dogs to be seized and made the defendant subject to a further CBO, banning him from keeping such animals for life. Laveric was also told to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work and complete a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 10 days.
Judge Woodhall said: “The dogs continue to cause significant noise nuisance to neighbours at both properties, barking incessantly. I am satisfied that you have continually attempted to circumvent court orders by moving the property or proposing a transfer of ownership, when in practice nothing has changed.
“I understand that the council continues to receive complaints indicating ongoing breaches of the Criminal Behaviour Bylaw. You have attempted to blame your neighbours by suggesting that the problems would subside once you left the Halton area. The problems stem from the fact that you are causing noise nuisance to others, wherever they are.
“The references given speak to positive aspects of your character. Some of them are clearly in conflict with other evidence presented to me.
“Very serious damage and distress has been caused here. People have been unable to use their homes and have felt trapped. I am satisfied that you have engaged, and have continued to engage, in behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others – particularly those who are unfortunate enough to live close to properties to which you have access.
“The harm you have caused is substantial and ongoing. You have done nothing to reduce that risk, despite continued intervention by the local authority. You have stated your intention to continue to keep dogs and simply move elsewhere.
“The only way to prevent you from committing further offences in a similar manner is to obtain a confiscation order in respect of these dogs. Although you may love your animals, your ownership has had and will continue to have a very negative impact on those around you.
“It is clear that immediate detention would have a significant detrimental impact on your mother. I am also required to consider the punitive effect of the other orders I have made.
“You have been robbed of property that had a sentimental connection to you. These factors have led me to the conclusion that I must refrain from imposing an immediate prison sentence.”