On March 31, 2026, the usually quiet halls of Chelmsford Crown Court were awash with emotion as Ashley Warren, a 41-year-old aspiring rapper, received a 10-year and three-month prison sentence for his role in the tragic death of his mother-in-law, Esther Martin. The case, which has gripped the community of Jaywick, Essex and sparked national debate, centers on a fatal dog attack carried out by Warren’s XL bully, Bear, just days after the breed was officially banned in England and Wales.
The events unfolded on February 3, 2024, a date that will haunt the Martin family forever. Esther Martin, a 68-year-old grandmother who stood just 5ft 3in tall, was left alone to care for Warren’s two XL bully dogs and eight puppies at his then home on Hillman Avenue in Jaywick. Warren had asked Ms Martin to look after the animals so he could travel to London to film a music video—a decision that would prove fatal. According to prosecutors, Ms Martin had mobility issues and little to no experience handling such powerful dogs, especially for an extended period.
Just two days prior, on February 1, 2024, the UK government had enacted a ban on XL bully dogs, making it a criminal offense to own or possess the breed without a certificate of exemption. The law had been widely publicized for months, leaving little room for confusion. Despite this, Warren failed to obtain the necessary exemption certificates and admitted in court that he had not even applied for them. During a police visit to his property 11 days before the attack, Warren was caught on video telling an officer, “it’s a shame about the laws” and “my boy’s got papers already.” Prosecutor Christopher Paxton KC later told the jury, “If that was a reference to an exemption certificate, that was a lie.”
On the day of the attack, Ms Martin suffered what the judge described as “dozens and dozens” of injuries, including a bite that pierced the tissue of her arm and a “complete fracturing” of the bone. The court heard that the attack lasted at least 12 minutes—a “sustained and repeated attack,” in the words of Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson. The judge made it clear that Esther Martin was the first person to be killed by an XL bully dog after the new law came into force, emphasizing that Warren’s actions “demonstrated a sustained pattern of disregard for the law and for the lives and safety of others.”
The sentencing hearing was fraught with emotion. As Warren’s fate was read aloud, there were audible gasps from those in attendance, punctuated by a shout of “yes” from the public gallery. Esther Martin’s daughter, Sonia Martin, struggled through tears as she delivered her victim impact statement: “My overriding emotion is pure anger. Anger at mum’s death, anger at Ashley Warren for forcing that situation on mum.” She also expressed her frustration at Warren’s social media activity, noting, “He made social media posts and songs featuring XL bullies and saying he misses them.”
Warren’s defense, led by Allan Compton KC, attempted to paint a different picture. Compton argued that Warren’s “genuine belief” was that the dogs were not aggressive, based on his experience caring for them. “There was nothing in that lived experience to tell him… that they were capable of that reaction that occurred so tragically,” Compton said. But the judge was unmoved, noting that the dogs had been “confined in too small a space and you hadn’t walked them in the four weeks prior to Esther Martin’s death,” which “greatly increased the risk to aggressive behaviour from them.”
The jury found Warren guilty of owning Bear, the XL bully that caused injury resulting in death while dangerously out of control in a private place. He was acquitted of being responsible for another dog named Beauty, which belonged to his girlfriend. In addition to the main charge, Warren was also convicted of possessing a bladed article without lawful authority at Clacton railway station on the same day as the attack. He claimed the knife was a prop for a music video he was filming in London. For this, the judge handed down a consecutive three-month sentence.
Warren’s criminal record was brought to light during the proceedings. He has nine previous convictions for 15 offenses, including robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and affray. The judge imposed a lifetime ban on Warren owning dogs, making it clear that the court viewed his pattern of behavior as a serious threat to public safety.
As the sentencing concluded, the courtroom atmosphere remained tense. At one point, a disturbance broke out in the public gallery, prompting the judge to warn attendees to remain quiet or leave the proceedings. The raw grief and anger of the Martin family were palpable. Outside the courtroom, Esther Martin’s daughter Kelly Fretwell addressed reporters, stating, “The sentencing brings a sense of relief and a long-awaited path towards peace for our family. While nothing can truly compensate for the loss of our mum, we are grateful the court has recognised the gravity of this tragedy.” Her sister Sonia added, “She will be remembered for being a great friend to many, a sister, an aunt, a grandmother and a great grandmother but to us she was and always will be our mum.”
The case has reignited debate over the responsibilities of dog owners, especially in light of new breed-specific legislation. Prosecutor Christopher Paxton KC told the court, “It was, you may think, a tragedy waiting to happen, given the imbalance that arose between 68-year-old Esther, short in stature, and the towering power of these banned XL bully dogs.” The fact that Warren left Ms Martin—who had no training or experience with such animals—in charge of two adult XL bullies and eight puppies was cited as a key factor in the tragedy.
In the aftermath, the court’s decision to impose a substantial prison sentence and a lifetime ban on dog ownership sends a clear message about the gravity of breaching animal control laws. The judge’s words ring out as a warning: “You knew the breed was banned from that date but you didn’t take any steps to comply with the law.”
For the Martin family, the loss is immeasurable, but the verdict offers a measure of accountability. The case stands as a stark reminder of the consequences of neglecting legal responsibilities—especially when lives are at stake.