For horse trainer Evan Williams, the sentence handed down in Cardiff Crown Court on Tuesday morning brought one chapter to a close and opened another filled with uncertainty. The case centred on a violent attack in December 2024 that left 72-year-old Martin Dandridge with a broken arm after Williams mistook him for a poacher.
What happened on Williams’ land?
The assault took place on Williams’ land at Llancarfan, Vale of Glamorgan, south Wales, on the evening of December 4 2024. Martin Dandridge, from Swindon, Wiltshire, was struck repeatedly with a hockey stick and suffered a fractured arm in the incident. Williams, 55, denied causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but a jury convicted him after about 90 minutes of deliberation following a trial in March.
Recorder Angharad Price told Williams: “This was an appalling offence, causing serious injury. ” She added: “It is never acceptable to take the law into your own hands. ” Those words framed a sentence that placed the personal consequences of the attack alongside the wider question of how fear and anger can turn a dispute into a criminal act.
Why does the sentence matter beyond the courtroom?
The prison term carries immediate consequences for Williams’ life and for the business built around his training work. His barrister, David Elias KC, told the court: “If he isn’t there, there is no business. ” Williams’ licence had already been transferred into the name of his wife, Cath, after his conviction, but Elias raised doubts about whether she would continue in charge.
That uncertainty gives the case a broader human edge. A career built on reputation and racing knowledge now faces a practical test, while the victim continues to live with the impact of the assault. The judge said Williams had a choice that evening: confront Dandridge himself or wait for nearby police to attend. In that framing, the court drew a sharp line between protection and retaliation.
What did the judge say about the attack?
Recorder Angharad Price said Williams had talked at trial about protecting his champion racehorses and his family, but made clear that such protection could not come at Dandridge’s expense. She also referred to an earlier incident six weeks before the assault, when Williams disturbed poachers on his land and was threatened with a shotgun. The judge said that experience must have been frightening, but stressed that it was still not acceptable to take matters into his own hands.
The sentence was delivered after the court heard a large volume of support for Williams. Elias described “an unprecedented number of testimonials, ” saying 570 character references had been received by Williams’ solicitors, with 102 submitted to the court and read by the judge before the hearing. The scale of that backing shows how deeply the case has split sympathy from judgment: support for the trainer on one side, the harm done to Dandridge on the other.
What happens now for the trainer and his business?
The immediate answer is prison, but the longer answer is less certain. Williams’ future in training is now in doubt, and his licence arrangement has not removed the central issue identified in court: the business depends on him. The sentence leaves open questions about who, if anyone, will carry that work forward and whether the yard can continue in practical terms.
For Dandridge, the case is not only about one winter evening on private land. It is also about the lasting effect of an attack that the judge described as serious and appalling. For Williams, the next three years will be measured not in race meetings or training schedules, but in the consequences of a decision made in a moment of mistaken identity. Back at Llancarfan, the land where the assault happened now carries a different meaning: a place where a confrontation became a prison sentence, and where the future of a horse trainer remains unsettled.
