A WOMAN who claimed a county councillor had behaved 'aggressively' when challenging her about not picking up her dog's mess has failed to have her conviction quashed.

In October last year, Frances Woolf, of Gesail Y Mynnydd in Llangollen, convicted of allowing her dog to foul on a football pitch close to the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, between Trevor and Froncysyllte.

The court heard the fouling was witnessed by Llangollen Rural County Councillor Rondo Roberts, who then reported the matter along with photographs and car registration number to Wrexham Council's Enforcement Team.

Woolf was fined £150 and ordered to pay a £60 victim surcharge, as well as £1,207 council costs.

But she appealed the conviction and sentence - appearing at Caernarfon Crown Court on Friday to challenge Cllr Roberts's evidence.

Matthew Kerruish-Jones, representing Wrexham Council, said the councillor had been called by a member of the public who had concerns about "a female" not picking up after her dogs at the site on October 12, 2022 - so he made his way there.

What followed was a matter of some debate between the two parties.

Giving his account to the court, Cllr Roberts said when he arrived at the scene he spotted dogs on the field - at least one of which he saw defecating.

He said when he went to speak to Woolf, her six dogs "charged" at him, causing him to fear he was about to be attacked.

Cllr Roberts said he approached Woolf, who was bending into her vehicle to put a dog in, and introduced himself - adding that he'd seen her dogs defecate on the field.

"Her reply to me without turning to face me was - and you can f*** right off", Cllr Roberts told the court.

"Ms Woolf was getting agitated and animated, so I said this conversation's going nowhere and I am going to take a photo of your registration for identification purposes and report you to Wrexham Council enforcement."

According to Cllr Roberts, Woolf "grabbed" his lanyard and read his name from his ID badge.

He claimed that as he was walking away, she shouted after him "I'm going to f****** run you over."

"She revved up the track," he said, "I thought she could run me over - it's well within her capabilities."

Woolf, who represented herself at the hearing, cross-examined the councillor.

She alleged he had been abusive with her, asking her: "Why don't you f****** go back to where you came from," and "why don't you go f*** yourself?"

Woolf accused Cllr Roberts of having an "agenda," telling the court the incident had left her shaken and upset.

"I'm a 65-year-old disabled woman and I didn't find this experience pleasant at all," she said.

"When I got home I was shaking vigorously - I was so upset."

But Cllr Roberts played footage to the court which he'd recorded during the confrontation, which showed Woolf's behaviour on the day.

Still, she denied her dogs had been on the football field at all; claiming they had been with her on a separate 'rough pasture.'

And she entirely denied failing to pick up after dogs.

Cllr Roberts branded Woolf's account "a pack of lies" and became frustrated in the witness stand at one point, telling her: "Get your story right - please.

"I'm fed up of this. 14 months under [investigation by] the police and Ombudsman. It's enough!

"You're compulsively lying to wriggle off the hook; you might find it funny but I don't.

"You're wasting public money."

Joanne Rogers, Wrexham Council's enforcement services coordinator, was also called to give evidence.

Asked by Woolf what factual evidence is needed by an authority to pursue enforcement over dog mess, she said: "The witness statement is sufficient.

"Video or photos can enhance the report but they are not required legally."

After he and the Magistrates had retired to deliberate, Judge Wyn Lloyd Jones told Woolf the court had found both witnesses to be "honest, reliable and straight-forward."

He told her: "We reject entirely the appellant's account that he (Cllr Roberts) was aggressive towards her.

"The tone and demeanour shown in the video are entirely inconsistent with the account she was unnerved and threatened.

"We entirely reject her suggestion Mr Roberts had an 'agenda' against her or was part of a conspiracy against her - these are wild allegations and are totally incredible."

As such, the charge was proved and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Mr Kerruish-Jones told the court the costs incurred for Friday's hearing came to £1,104.

The Judge and Magistrates then had to decide how much of the bill Woolf would have to foot, and how much would fall to the council.

Woolf told the court she lived "hand-to-mouth" as it is, and that she incurs a lot of cost feeding her many animals.

The fine and victim surcharge imposed by the lower courts, of £150 and £60 respectively, were left unchanged.

But the costs for the magistrates hearing were lowered to £600, and the costs for Friday were set at £500.

The total sum will be deducted from Woolf's benefits.