A BOY racer who blamed his high speed during a police chase on his dog sitting on the accelerator today failed to convince top judges his sentence was too harsh.
Jordan Winn, 23, hit speeds of up to 80mph in built-up areas as he sought to leave police behind.
He blamed it on his Staffordshire bull terrier, Buster, who was loose in the Volvo he was driving.
After pleading guilty to dangerous driving, he was jailed for 13 months at Durham Crown Court last November.
Today, his lawyers claimed that the sentence did not take account of his mitigation, but two senior judges threw the case out.
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker said Winn, oriigianlly from South Shields, was guilty of a ‘serious episode of dangerous driving’.
The court heard Winn had moved to Stanley in County Durham to get away from bad company, but still managed to get into trouble.
On October 19, 2013, a police officer spotted him driving too fast in Whitehill Way, Chester-le-Street, and followed him.
As he sought to escape, he hit speeds of up to 80mph and swerved in front of oncoming traffic, causing others to perform emergency stops.
He eventually stopped and was arrested. Police found the Staffie loose in the car.
Winn pleaded guilty, but blamed his dog for the speeds.
But a judge rejected his explanation, saying he was sure Winn had been trying to get away from police.
Lawyers for Winn argued today he had made a real effort to change his life by moving away from South Shields.
He had a job and his girlfriend is due to give birth to their child, Mr Justice Baker and Mr Justice Mitting were told.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Baker focused on the appalling nature of Winn’s driving.
“Jordan Winn, having deliberately chosen to seek to avoid being stopped by the police, drove at grossly excessive speeds in a busy built-up residential area,” he said.
“It was only pure good fortune that he didn’t cause serious injury or death to a driver of an oncoming vehicle. It was only their emergency action that prevented it.
“The resulting sentence of 13 months was neither manifestly excessive, nor wrong in principle, and accordingly this appeal fails.”