A PENSIONER has been cleared of hitting a dog walker in an early morning confrontation as he drove home after fetching the Sunday papers.

Hafford Baker was at the wheel of his 4x4 when he spotted 12-year-old white alsatian Jasmine in a narrow lane in Cleeve Prior, near Evesham.

The dog’s owner, Stuart Adams, claimed the vehicle was so close to dog that it “pushed” the animal to one side. An angry scene followed with the driver.

But Mr Baker told an appeal hearing at Worcester Crown Court that he was nowhere near the dog, which was sniffing in the undergrowth.

After a complaint to police, 74-year-old Mr Baker, of Mill Lane, Cleeve Prior, was prosecuted and convicted of common assault by Worcester magistrates on December 16 last year.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 compensation and £300 costs. The penalties were quashed after he won his appeal.

Mr Adams told the court that Jasmine was not on a lead on March 28 last year but Mr Baker made no attempt to let her get off the track. He estimated the speed at 20mph and he banged the side of the vehicle as it went past.

He opened the passenger door, shouted abuse at the driver and grabbed his jumper. As he walked away, Mr Adams claimed he was punched in the face and this caused a cut eye and extensive bruising.

Cross-examined by Graham Russell, for the appellant, he said he did not hit the 4x4 with a mug he was carrying and did not retaliate when he was punched.

Mr Baker told the court that his speed was only 5mph and he had given the dog a wide berth. He had driven past the animal when there was “an almighty bang” on the side of his vehicle.

When he stopped, Mr Adams leant in through the passenger door “in a frenzy” and swore at him. When Mr Adams grabbed his wrist, he said: “Let go of me, you maniac.”

He started to defend himself and there was a flailing of arms. He presumed this was when the injuries were caused.

Judge John Cavell said it was sad that such an incident had come to court. There had been conflicting versions about the vehicle’s speed and whether or not the dog had been hit.

There was no independent evidence and he and his two magistrates had not been satisfied with the burden of proof advanced by the prosecution. The appeal was therefore allowed.