Top Grand National horse trainer to stand trial after ‘attacking man during bust up at his countryside stables'
A TOP Grand National horse trainer is due to stand trial accused of attacking a man in his countryside stables.
Evan Williams, 54, allegedly assaulted Martin Dandridge during a bust-up in the Vale of Glamorgan last December.
2
Evan Williams is accused of attacking a man at his stables
Credit: Athena
The trainer, who has over 1,200 career winners, appeared at Cardiff Crown Court today.
He pleaded not guilty to two charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Williams is accused of "unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm" to Mr Dandridge.
His lawyers said they accept that Mr Dandridge had fallen, but dispute the injuries were caused that night.
Read more news
The Recorder of Cardiff, Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, set a trial date for March 3
next
year.
Williams was released on bail under the condition he does not contact the alleged victim.
The successful horse trainer won the Welsh Grand National in 2020 with The Secret Reprieve.
He also had horses placed in five consecutive Grand Nationals between 2009 and 2013.
Most read in Horse Racing
Williams, who has scooped more than £3million in prize
money
over the past five years, runs a training facility at his home.
His website says: "Here at Evan Williams Racing based in the heart of the Vale of Glamorgan you and your horse will benefit from excellent training facilities as well as a friendly and dedicated team that season after season supply a steady flow of winners at all levels.
" We
pride
ourselves on running a highly professional operation where all our horses and owners are very well looked after."
2
Williams will stand trial next year
Credit: PA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
11 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Ask a solicitor: Should I be worried about trespassers on my land?
Dear Karen, I am always concerned about trespassers coming on my land and making a claim against me. It seems very unfair that they possibly could. What is the law in relation to this? Dear Reader, This is a worry for many landowners. A trespasser is defined as 'an entrant, other than a recreational user or a visitor'. Such entrants do not have permission or authority to be present on the property. A burglar falls within this definition. The duty owed to trespassers is set out in Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. It is similar to that owed to recreational users. However, an occupier may not be liable for injury or damage unintentionally caused to a person who enters on land or premises for the purposes of committing an offence, unless the court determines otherwise. The decision of the court will be based on the facts of the case. In the case of Williams vs. TP Wallace Construction Limited, the entrant plaintiff did not have permission or authority to be on the property in question. The defendant company had hired the plaintiff to install guttering at a shopping centre. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff attended the defendant's premises unannounced in order to establish whether the job was being carried out properly. The plaintiff proceeded to inspect the site without express permission while the site workers were on a break and the architect was not present. The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries he sustained as a result of a fall from a ladder, which was not tied to the scaffolding. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in failing to have the ladder secured. The court held that the plaintiff was not a visitor, but was instead a trespasser, because he was not on the site by invitation or arrangement. The court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's case on the basis that the failure to tie the ladder to the scaffolding was not an act of reckless disregard, and the defendant did not breach his duty to the plaintiff, a trespasser, in this regard. The 1995 Act does not draw a distinction between an adult and a child, so a child is owed the same duty of care, however gauging the standard of reckless disregard, the court must have regard of all circumstances, such as the conduct of the person, and the care that he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety while on a premises. Naturally, a child is not aware of dangers as an adult would be, and they may ignore or fail to understand warning signs. As a result, the courts have traditionally afforded more leniency to children who come onto premises as a trespasser, if it could be shown that the child was at an age that he or she would 'follow a bait as mechanically as a fish' and the occupier's premises contained 'an allurement'. The case law states that in order for something to be an allurement, it must be both 'fascinating and fatal'. In the case of O'Leary vs John A. Wood Limited, the court held that 'an object should not be considered an allurement unless the temptations which it presents are such that no normal child could be expected to restrain themselves from intermeddling even if he knows that to intermeddle is wrong'. Clearly, the allurement approach in these types of cases is of great benefit to children, but the courts appear to have taken a restrictive approach so as to ensure that the net for liability is not cast so widely as to be unjust. Karen Walsh, from a farming background, is a solicitor practising at Walsh & Partners Solicitors, 17 South Mall, Cork, and 88 Main Street, Midleton, Co Cork, and also the author of 'Farming and the Law'. Walsh & Partners also specialises in personal injury claims, conveyancing, probate, and family law. Email: info@ Web: While every effort is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, Karen Walsh does not accept responsibility for errors or omissions howsoever arising. Readers should seek legal advice in relation to their particular circumstances at the earliest opportunity. Read More Ask a solicitor: A contractor fell off a ladder on my farm
The Journal
6 days ago
- The Journal
Jury in Gerry Adams libel case expected to begin deliberations tomorrow
A JURY IS expected to begin deliberating on Gerry Adams' libel action against the BBC on Thursday morning. The former Sinn Fénn leader alleges a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. Donaldson was shot dead in Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent for 20 years. In the programme broadcast in September 2016, an anonymous source given the pseudonym Martin claimed the shooting was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Adams gave 'the final say'. Journalist Jennifer O'Leary PA PA In 2009, dissident republican group the Real IRA claimed responsibility for the killing and a Garda investigation into the matter remains ongoing. Adams claims he was subject to a 'grievous smear' while the BBC has described the legal action as a 'cynical attempt to launder his reputation'. The high-profile republican is seeking damages of at least €200,000 from the BBC. However, the British public service broadcaster has argued it would be a 'cruel joke' to award the former Sinn Féin president any damages. Advertisement Judge Alexander Owens PA PA Trial judge Justice Alexander Owens told the jury that he will attempt to finish providing a summary of all the evidence in the case on Wednesday, with a view to allowing them to begin deliberations on Thursday. He said he did not imagine that they would be 'deliberating for long' in this case as they will have had the evidence relayed back to them. He continued by giving an overview of the evidence of the main journalist in the programme, Jennifer O'Leary, whom he said was the most important witness for the BBC's defence on fair and reasonable publication, and for the case that the broadcast was in the public interest. Owens told the jury he was going to go through the evidence as 'quickly as possible', comparing his summary to the pace of the Grand National horse race. Explaining his reasoning for giving a 'fairly detailed' recount of the evidence, he said the 'smoke of battle' of adversarial cross-examination had now lifted and there was an opportunity for them to rehear the evidence in a calmer, more relaxed atmosphere with a fuller appreciation of all the issues in the case. On O'Leary's evidence, Owens said the jury may consider whether it proves that that materials she gathered from her sources were 'sufficiently robust' to support the journalistic decision to include the allegation made by Martin in the programme. O'Leary and the BBC have said that the central allegation against Adams had been corroborated by five other sources, although this was not referenced in the broadcast. Owens said that, in his view, the matters of public interest and fair and reasonable publication would be 'more starkly identified' for the jury if reference to corroborating sources had been included. On the statutory provisions about attempts made to verify the allegation, the judge said it was his view that the lack of references to other independent sources in the programme does not alter the matter. 'Obviously a central issue is how you view the evidence of Jennifer O'Leary, which is clearly central to your decision on that particular matter.' Owens said the matter of sufficient corroboration or verification is for the jury to assess by reference to O'Leary's evidence.
Irish Independent
23-05-2025
- Irish Independent
Ex-Manchester United player Brandon Williams given suspended sentence over crash
Williams, 24, was spotted driving at high speeds and in an erratic manner in an Audi A3 on the A34 near Handforth, Cheshire, on August 20 2023. His vehicle collided with a Ford Fiesta before crashing into the central reservation. Williams was on loan at Ipswich Town at the time of incident. Last June, Manchester United announced he would leave the club at the end of his contract. In March, he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and having no insurance. On Friday, at Chester Crown Court, he was sentenced to a 14-month jail term, suspended for two years. Recorder Eric Lamb also banned him from driving for three years and ordered he must undertake 180 hours of unpaid work as part of a community order. A female motorist travelling behind Williams on the dual carriageway shortly before 6pm thought he was not in control of his vehicle, which was braking heavily and dropping back to leave a small gap, the court heard. Max Saffman, prosecuting, said the woman noticed the driver and a female passenger appeared to have yellow balloons in their mouths, and she was 'scared' they would collide with her vehicle. The Audi overtook and swerved in front of her, in what she said was a 'needless manoeuvre'. ADVERTISEMENT Williams then repeated the same behaviour as he drove up to a Ford Fiesta driven by Clare Smith, the court was told, but as he pulled out to overtake he hit the rear of her vehicle and then careered into the central reservation. Both vehicles were extensively damaged. In victim personal statements Ms Smith and her two female passengers all described Williams's driving as 'too fast and erratic'. One said she thought she was going to be killed. They sustained various physical injuries, including whiplash and bruising, and all had suffered a psychological impact. The court was told that Williams's 'prolonged episode' of dangerous driving took place over five miles and, although he was not under the influence of Class C drug nitrous oxide at the time, he had assisted his front-seat passenger to use her balloon. Collision investigators concluded that Williams was driving at 99mph on the 70mph limit road just four seconds before the crash.
