Father who put 'Hot Diggidy Dog Hot Original Pepper Sauce' on his constipated baby's bottom burning him so badly he needed reconstructive surgery is jailed

  • Colostomy and reconstructive surgery repaired damage to the baby
  • Burns expert tells court he hasn't seen anything like it in 3,000 cases
  • Judge slams 'fantastically irresponsible' father and jails him for 3 years
  • Father failed to seek medical help and denied child cruelty for two years

Sentenced: The father, pictured outside Salisbury Crown Court, has now been jailed after a judge branded his behaviour 'fantastically irresponsible'

Sentenced: The father, pictured outside Salisbury Crown Court, has now been jailed after a judge branded his behaviour 'fantastically irresponsible'

A father who put ‘Hot Diggidy Dog Hot Original Pepper Sauce’ on his newborn baby son’s bottom to try to relieve his constipation - inflicting severe burns - has been jailed for three years.

The chemical injuries caused by the £1.99 chilli sauce were so bad that doctors had to perform a colostomy and reconstructive surgery to repair the damage to the 27-day-old child.

And a forensic burns consultant and plastic surgeon told Salisbury Crown Court in Wiltshire that he had never seen anything like the injury in more than 3,000 burns cases.

The baby’s 25-year-old father, who cannot be named to protect the child’s identity, has now been jailed after a judge branded his shocking behaviour ‘fantastically irresponsible’.

The court heard the father failed to seek medical help and denied a charge of child cruelty for two years - before finally admitting what he had done during family court proceedings.

Police initially investigated after a nursing assistant noticed the wound and reported it when the boy was taken to hospital for a routine check-up five days after the sauce was applied.

He was arrested and as officers searched his home in near Salisbury they found a soiled nappy and a syringe containing capsaicin, the active ingredient in chilli peppers, in a bin.

It is highly irritant to humans and can cause a ‘significant blistering burn’ if left in contact with the skin for any length of time, the court heard.

The boy was taken into care while the father, who hid his face outside court, was ‘evasive and dishonest’ in early police interviews.

The defendant told police he used the syringe to put hot sauce on food before finally coming clean and admitting he applied it to his son’s bottom with his finger.

The court heard the mother was in the shower at the time of the incident, so knew nothing about it.

James Newton-Price, prosecuting, said the father’s actions were ‘exceptionally irresponsible’ even if the defendant meant no harm.

He argued the extreme severity of the injury, the obvious vulnerability of the baby, the pain and distress caused, and the failure to seek medical help were aggravating factors.

HOT DIGGIDY DOG CHILLI SAUCE

The chilli sauce’s creator Simon Llewellyn, a former submariner, appeared on BBC TV show Dragons’ Den in 2015 hoping for investment in his business.

He initially applied for the show in 2011 but was told his idea was too similar to Levi Roots’s successful Reggae Reggae Sauce product, which won investment from Dragon Peter Jones.

Mr Llewellyn failed to get investment despite the sauce already receiving orders from Tesco, Asda, Selfridges, Spar and even his ex-employers at the Ministry of Defence.

The defendant also admitted possessing 164 images and videos of extreme pornography, which Judge Andrew Barnett described as ‘vile and disgusting’.

But he told him the child cruelty was ‘by far and away the most serious, worrying and troubling offence’.

The judge added: ‘To put it mildly it was a gross error of judgement. It was a fantastically irresponsible thing to do to any child, let alone your own son.

‘It was a ghastly way to behave to a child, and appalling it should be your own son.’

The court heard the medical outcome for the child in later life was still uncertain.

The defendant sobbed in the dock as he was jailed for three years - receiving 28 months for child cruelty and eight months for possessing extreme pornography.

An initial charge of causing grievous bodily harm was dropped.

The court accepted there was no sexual motive behind the offence, and the judge was shown photos of the defendant having ‘positive’ supervised contact with his son.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now