Reality TV star Jack Fincham has successfully appealed against his prison sentence, which was handed down after he admitted to two offences related to his dangerously out-of-control dog.
The former Love Island winner, aged 32, had initially been sentenced to six weeks in prison at Southend Magistrates’ Court on January 29.
The case involved his black cane corso, which was responsible for two separate incidents in which it attacked members of the public. Despite pleading guilty, Fincham was quick to challenge the decision, securing conditional bail within hours and vowing to fight the ruling.
On Friday, his appeal was heard at Basildon Crown Court, where Judge Samantha Leigh determined that the original sentence was not appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Instead of sending him to prison, she chose to extend a previous suspended sentence that Fincham had received in March 2023. That earlier sentence had been issued for two unrelated offences—drug driving and the fraudulent use of a registered trademark.
As a result of the appeal, Fincham’s suspended sentence was lengthened by three months, meaning he must now remain on good behavior for an extended period.
The charges against Fincham stemmed from two separate incidents involving his dog, Elvis. The first occurred in September 2022, when the dog attacked a runner named Robert Sudell in Swanley, Kent, biting his arm and causing injuries.
This incident raised serious concerns about the animal’s behavior, prompting legal scrutiny. The second incident took place in June 2024 in Fincham’s hometown of Grays, Essex. On that occasion, the dog grabbed a woman’s leg.
While no injuries were reported, witnesses stated that the animal was clearly out of control, further reinforcing concerns about its temperament and Fincham’s ability to manage it.
Following the June incident, Fincham voluntarily attended a police interview. During this meeting, authorities issued him a caution and instructed him to ensure that the dog was always muzzled when in public.
However, just two months later, in August 2024, police were again called to investigate reports about the dog. This time, it had been spotted inside a public pool area at a hotel without a muzzle or a lead, sparking fresh fears about its behavior.
The repeated incidents suggested that Fincham had not fully complied with the conditions imposed on him, which contributed to the legal case against him.
During the appeal hearing, prosecutor Hannah Steventon emphasized that the August incident demonstrated Fincham’s failure to take the matter seriously. His disregard for safety measures led to concerns that he was not being responsible enough with the animal, particularly given its history of aggressive behavior.
In his defense, Fincham’s lawyer, Richard Cooper, argued that his client had specifically chosen that hotel because it was marketed as “dog-friendly” and had assumed he would be able to let his pet roam freely.
According to Cooper, Fincham had not acted maliciously but had instead misunderstood the expectations around pet supervision.
Additionally, Cooper highlighted Fincham’s decision to film and share videos of the dog off its lead at the swimming pool. With a social media following of nearly two million people, Fincham had effectively broadcast his actions to a vast audience, raising questions about whether he was setting a poor example for others.
Judge Leigh acknowledged this lapse in judgment and bluntly described Fincham’s decision to post the footage as “his own stupidity.” The court noted that while he may not have acted with intent to cause harm, his repeated negligence regarding the dog’s control was concerning and needed to be addressed.
As part of his original sentencing, Fincham had been ordered to pay a total of £3,680. This included £2,000 to cover the costs of kenneling his dog, a fine of £961, and £200 in compensation to Robert Sudell, the runner who was injured in the 2022 attack.
Despite the reduction in his sentence, the financial penalties remained in place, ensuring that he faced some consequences for his actions.
The court emphasized that pet ownership, particularly of large and potentially dangerous breeds, comes with significant responsibilities that Fincham had failed to meet on multiple occasions.
His legal team argued that he had made notable improvements in his personal and professional life since his last court appearance. They pointed out that he had returned to a structured work routine, holding down a traditional nine-to-five job.
Additionally, Fincham had taken up boxing, which his lawyer presented as evidence of his commitment to self-discipline and personal growth.
The court acknowledged these positive steps but warned that any further breaches of the conditions of his suspended sentence could have serious consequences.
Before concluding the case, Judge Leigh issued a stern warning to Fincham, making it clear that he needed to exercise far greater caution moving forward.
She stressed that he was being given an opportunity to correct his behavior, but that any future incidents could result in more severe legal repercussions. “You need to be very careful now,” she told him, underscoring the importance of ensuring that his dog remained under control at all times.
The judge’s remarks reflected a broader concern about public safety and responsible pet ownership.
With his appeal successful, Fincham has avoided serving time in prison, but his legal troubles have served as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with owning a powerful dog breed.
His case has also highlighted the risks of failing to take warnings seriously, particularly when dealing with an animal known to have caused harm in the past.
Moving forward, he will be under increased scrutiny, and any further lapses could see him facing even harsher penalties.
Whether he heeds the judge’s warning remains to be seen, but for now, he has been granted a second chance to prove he can be a responsible pet owner.
