by A man who tormented his neighbors for seven years narrowly escaped being unable to stop his dogs from barking. John Laveric, 48, was banned from keeping dogs as a result of the noise which was previously described as “one of the worst cases ever”.
However, Laveric continued to own his pets Wilma, Daphne, Tia and Tormand. This forced the occupants of nearby properties to resort to extreme measures, including sleeping in their cars and wearing a pair of ear defenders while sitting in their own gardens.
Liverpool Crown Court heard complaints about the dogs started flooding in from residents of Eric Street in Widnes during 2017, leading to Halton Borough Council serving Laveric with a noise abatement notice. However, the issue continued 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
In his prosecution, Robert Cline outlined how magistrates had given him a criminal behavior order, requiring him to remove the four presa canario dogs from the property within seven days and be prohibited from keeping dogs at the address for two years. Laveric then moved “almost immediately” to a house on Port Lane in the town.
The local authority started receiving more complaints from neighbors on this street within four days of the CBO being implemented, leading to another noise abatement notice. Again, the barking continued and the defendant was prosecuted for breaching the notice.
This led to Laveric being handed a second criminal behavior order in November 2022, which banned him from keeping dogs at either property or anywhere within the Halton borough. The Liverpool ECHO reported at the time that 11 nearby properties made complaints against him over a three-year period, and his dogs were recorded barking a staggering 1,645 times in a 20-minute period on one date.
However, he ignored the court order and kept the four dogs – who continued to “bark incessantly” – at both Eric Street and Pit Lane until last month. Laveric then falsely claimed to have transferred ownership of his pets to his mother Christine Laveric, who was said to be “in such poor physical health that she cannot be seen to be responsible for these dogs”, and a man named Jason White.
The court heard that one Eric Street neighbor was forced to sleep in his car during work breaks because of the dogs “barking all day and night”, while an 86-year-old resident of Pit Lane resorted to defenders earrings when spending time in his garden. Another 74-year-old homeowner at the same time considered moving house and one woman in her 70s said she felt “trapped in her house” and decided not to retire because it was the only “escape from the noise”.
Mr Cline said: “Deliberately, we say, the defendant manipulated the situation and tried to get around the order by transferring property. The defendant sees the order as something to get around.
“The prosecution says this is a complete sham, where the defendant intends to create a picture where he is not the owner of the dogs. This defendant cannot be trusted to obey an order.
“The defendant intends to continue owning dogs in the future. There is a theme with this man, that he cannot help himself because of whatever personality traits he may have. It is fair to say that point reached when enough is enough.”
Laveric has 10 previous convictions for 20 offenses – including drugs, criminal damage, assault and breach of court orders. Ben Berkson, defending, told the court: “Christine Laveric is in a terrible state of health.
“The defendant is her only remaining family member. His caring responsibilities 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 defendant’s life. The defendant raised Daphne and Tormand, living from a very poor litter of 12.
“Wilma has been with Christine Laveric for a significant period of time. Walking the dogs helped the defendant with issues such as anxiety. It was an escape from his mental health problem. He has been a dog owner since 1986. He is a dog owner. dog owner and a long time dog lover.
“He is very familiar with the powers of the court today. That was beneficial for him to experience. The defendant is extremely worried about going into custody today as a result of these convictions. The defendant is more worried about his mother’s welfare than his own interest.
“I saw in the defendant a clear movement away from the frustration of the order, working around the order and those motifs that the prosecution raised for someone who now wants to think carefully about his mother more than himself .He needs her and wants to be there.
“It’s not about the dogs anymore. It’s about being in the prize of 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 behavior 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 he was sentenced to 22 months in prison which was suspended for two years.
Judge Gary Woodhall ordered the seizure of the four dogs and imposed another CBO on the defendant, banning him from keeping such animals for life. Laveric was also told to complete 180 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 10 days.
Passing sentence, Judge Woodhall said: “The dogs have continued to be a significant noise nuisance to the neighbors of the two properties, barking incessantly. I am pleased that you have consistently attempted to circumvent court orders through properties transfer or propose a transfer of ownership, where nothing in practice has changed.
“I’m told that the council continues to receive complaints, indicating continued breaches of the criminal behavior order. You have sought to blame your neighbors, suggesting that the problems will diminish as you leave an area Halton The problems arise from the fact that you are a nuisance to others, wherever that is.
“References given speak of positive aspects of your character. Some of it clearly contradicts other evidence that has been put before me.
“This is where a lot of damage and distress happened. People were unable to use their homes and were left feeling stranded. I’m glad you were caught, and until recently, carried on likely to cause harassment, fear and distress to others – especially those fortunate enough to live near premises to which you have access.
“The harm you have caused is significant and ongoing. You have done nothing to reduce that risk, despite continued intervention by the local authority. You have indicated your intention to continue keeping dogs and only move to another place.
“The only way to prevent further offending in a similar manner is to make a deprivation order in respect of these dogs. Although you may love animals, your property is it caused and will continue to cause a very negative impact on those around you.
“It is clear that immediate custody would have a significant detrimental effect on your mother. I am also obliged to take into account the punitive effect of the other orders I have imposed.
“You were deprived of property to which you had a sentimental attachment. These factors have led me to the conclusion that I should withdraw from a custodial sentence immediately.”
