Dundee thug beat up ex-girlfriend and stole boy's takeaway
Daniel Blake left the woman bruised and cut after targeting her while he was withdrawing from Valium.
He would later be caught concealing drugs on his person after being arrested by police.
The 46-year-old, who has multiple previous convictions for violence, is now at liberty because of the amount of time he has already spent in prison.
Dundee Sheriff Court heard how the woman had let Blake stay with her for a few days before being attacked in the early hours of February 25 2023.
Blake had demanded money from her after becoming aware she had £130 in a bedroom drawer.
Fiscal depute Duncan MacKenzie said: 'The complainer woke up to the accused again asking for money.
'He went to the drawer and she tried to stop him.
'It was at that point he held her down on the bed, pushing her down around the jaw area.
'She attempted to kick him off and he repeatedly punched her on the body.'
The woman began banging on the floor which prompted a neighbour to call the police.
Blake fled with the cash and her mobile phone with the woman found to have cuts and bruising on her arms as well as complaining of a sore face.
The next month, a laughing Blake grabbed a 15-year-old's takeaway order from him while at the secure entry to a property in the Coldside area.
The boy called Blake a 'junkie' and tried to walk past him before being punched once on the head and body.
It was revealed that on December 16 2023, police forced entry to a property in St Mary's where Blake was suspected of being in possession of drugs.
Mr MacKenzie added: 'The accused became aware of police but ignored their request to open the door.
'Police forced entry and the accused was seen to attempt to conceal items in his back passage.
'The accused was taken into custody and placed under observation at Bell Street police station as he refused to provide police with items he had been seen to conceal.
'The accused then passed two wraps containing brown powder.'
The powder was later revealed to be 4.7g of an ester of morphine, a Class A drug.
Blake previously admitted attacking the woman and the boy, breaching a curfew, refusing to produce concealed drugs and possessing drugs between February and December 2023.
Sheriff Gregor Murray sentenced Blake to 32 months in prison backdated to when he was first remanded on December 18 2023.
He is now at liberty but is subject to a 12-month supervised release order.
A two-year non-harassment order preventing him from contacting the woman was also imposed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
29-07-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two people as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Advertisement Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. Advertisement The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday. Laurence Fox and his partner Elizabeth Barker attended Monday's hearing. Photo: Ben Whitley/PA. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Advertisement Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. Advertisement 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.' Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. Advertisement Simon Blake (left), Nicola Thorp and Colin Seymour (right) attended the trial in November 2023 (Lucy North/PA) She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. 'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
South Wales Guardian
28-07-2025
- South Wales Guardian
Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told
Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.' Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. 'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
North Wales Chronicle
28-07-2025
- North Wales Chronicle
Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told
Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.' Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. 'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
