A Pembroke man who admitted carrying a wooden truncheon in public for fear of being attacked whilst out walking his dog has appeared in court.

Fifty-five-year-old Robert Earle, pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon in a public place when he appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

The defendant also admitted a drink-drive charge at the same hearing.

Prosecutor Vaughan Pritchard-Jones told the court that police officers on routine patrol on the A477 at Waterloo in Pembroke Dock, shortly before 8 pm, on October 15, were carrying out stock checks on vehicles, when Mr. Earle in his Peugeot came out of East Llanion Industrial Estate.

“Officers could smell intoxicants on the driver’s breath and when asked if he’d been drinking he told them no, and that he’d been out walking his dog,” he said.

Mr. Earle was found to be over the limit with a reading of 60 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

“When he was searched at the roadside, the defendant produced an old policeman’s wooden truncheon from inside his jacket,” explained Mr. Pritchard-Jones.

“He told officers that he carried it as he’d been attacked before, and he also used it as a ‘priest’ to dispatch fish.

“Mr. Earle explained that when he walked his dog, it was often in a ‘dodgy area with dodgy people’ so he carried the truncheon for protection.

“Carrying a weapon if there is a specific threat can be a reasonable excuse, but not an excuse to carry it at all times just in case,” he added.

Defence solicitor Mark Layton said that it was Mr. Earle’s first time in court and that he had a ‘misunderstanding of the law’ when it came to carrying the truncheon.

“He’d had difficulties with certain people whilst walking his dog, but he didn’t use the weapon to cause fear,” he said.

Magistrates fined the defendant a total of £240 for both offences and disqualified him from driving for 17 months.

He was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £85 and a £30 victim surcharge.

Mr. Earle apologised himself to the court for what he called ‘silly and stupid’ behaviour.