Brothers jailed after rioting outside asylum seeker hotel
Scott and Jason McGuire were at the forefront of the disorder which engulfed the Holiday Inn Express near Rotherham, on August 4, 2024, Sheffield Crown Court heard on Monday.
The brothers were jailed along with two others men – Keethan Reeve-Lawson and Daniel Kazemi.
This is understood to have brought the total number of people sentenced for the Rotherham violence to 104.
Judge Jeremy Richardson KC outlined how the McGuire brothers were at the forefront of the 'mob' during the most serious part of the disorder on that Sunday afternoon.
The judge has heard over dozens of hearings how the hotel was besieged for around 12 hours.
Police officers and the hotel itself were pelted with missiles as more than 200 asylum seekers and 22 staff were trapped inside.
At one point, the rioters smashed their way into the building and a burning wheelie-bin was pushed against a fire door.
A total of 64 officers were injured in the violence along with police horses and a dog.
Judge Richardson said it was his 'misfortune' to have sentenced most of those arrested after the disorder and said he was very familiar with video footage of the violence shown in court.
He said: 'Each time I see this exceptionally serious disturbance represented in the footage of these events I feel, as I'm sure many others feel, profound shame that such shocking disorder should occur in this country.'
The judge said: 'The venom of racism and racially motivated violence suffuses the events from first to last.'
Judge Richardson told the defendants: 'Several hundred people were intent on mob rule. That will never be tolerated in this country.'
And he added: 'All of those police officers are deserving of the highest praise for the way in which they resisted provocation and handled an immensely challenging situation with bravery, professionalism and skill.'
Judge Richardson described how Scott McGuire was captured arriving at the scene with what appeared to be his partner and a child in a pushchair.
He was later pictured in the mob at various times during the disorder and is seen dismantling safety barriers in front of the riot police as well as kicking items which were then thrown at the officers by others.
The judge said: 'You were involved in fierce attacks on police officers close to the hotel.
'You were well to the fore and your participation was of a high order.'
Judge Richardson said Jason McGuire was filmed throwing missiles at officers and a police van as well as at the hotel building, while wearing a mask.
He was also filmed tearing down fencing which was used by others to throw at the police lines and fuel the fire which was set outside the building.
The judge said: 'Your involvement was well to the fore in the most serious aspects of the episodes that afternoon.'
The court heard how Jason McGuire was jailed for four years in 2015 for a drugs offence and for 10 years in 2018 for a machete attack.
Judge Richardson jailed Reeve-Lawson and Kazemi for 22 months each after hearing how they were involved in later incidents once police had managed to push the mob away from immediately outside the hotel.
Kazemi was filmed throwing a can of beer at officers, which smashed against their shields, and the judge noted that he was 'visibly happy' when another man threw a metal bar at police.
Richard Barradell, defending Kazemi, said 'like many others' his client joined in 'once the pack mentality started'.
He said: 'He cannot for the life of him explain why.'
Mr Barradell said his client was 'bitterly embarrassed' and wanted to apologise to everyone involved.
Scott McGuire, 35, and Jason McGuire, 31, both of Schofield Street, Mexborough; Reeve-Lawson, 22, of Mount Vernon Road, Worsbrough Common, Barnsley, and Kazemi, 35, of Edna Street, Bolton-upon-Dearne, all admitted violent disorder at a previous hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sturgeon: ‘Witch-hunt' MSPs investigating me were being directed by Salmond
Nicola Sturgeon has said she believes some MSPs who investigated the Scottish Government's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond were 'taking direction' from him. The former Scotland first minister wrote in her autobiography, Frankly, that she thought either Mr Salmond or his allies were guiding some opposition MSPs on what to ask her. She accused her opponents in the special Holyrood committee of a 'witch-hunt' against her. The committee ultimately found Ms Sturgeon misled the Scottish Parliament over the Salmond inquiry. However, she said the probe that 'really mattered' was the independent investigation by senior Irish lawyer James Hamilton which cleared her of breaking the ministerial code. The former SNP leader said that while she was 'certain' she had not breached the code, 'I had been obviously deeply anxious that James Hamilton might take a different view', admitting that 'had he done so, I would have had to resign'. She said that she felt 'on trial' as part of a wider phenomenon that when men were accused of impropriety, 'some people's first instinct is to find a woman to blame'. Ms Sturgeon did admit to 'misplaced trust and poor judgment' in her autobiography, which was published early by Waterstones on Monday, having been slated for release this Thursday. She wrote: 'This feeling of being on trial was most intense when it came to the work of the Scottish Parliament committee set up to investigate the Scottish government's handling of the original complaints against Alex. 'From day one, it seemed clear that some of the opposition members of the committee were much less interested in establishing facts, or making sure lessons were learned, than they were in finding some way to blame it all on me. 'If it sometimes felt to me like a 'witch-hunt', it is probably because for some of them that is exactly what it was. 'I was told, and I believe it to be true, that some of the opposition MSPs were taking direction from Alex himself – though possibly through an intermediary – on the points to pursue and the questions to ask.' Ms Sturgeon described the inquiry, to which she gave eight hours of sworn evidence, as 'gruelling' but also 'cathartic'. MSPs voted five to four that she misled them. The politicians began their inquiry after a judicial review in 2019 found the Scottish Government's investigation into Mr Salmond's alleged misconduct was unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias. Mr Salmond, who died last year, was awarded £500,000 in legal expenses. Ms Sturgeon wrote of the inquiry: 'It also gave the significant number of people who tuned in to watch the chance to see for themselves just how partisan some of the committee members were being. 'Not surprisingly, the opposition majority on the committee managed to find some way of asserting in their report that I had breached the ministerial code. 'However, it was the verdict of the independent Hamilton report that mattered.' She said her infamous falling out with her predecessor was a 'bruising episode' of her life as she accused Mr Salmond of creating a 'conspiracy theory' to defend himself from reckoning with misconduct allegations, of which he was cleared in court. Ms Sturgeon said her former mentor was 'never able to produce a shred of hard evidence that he was' the victim of a conspiracy. She went on: 'All of which begs the question: how did he manage to persuade some people that he was the wronged party, and lead others to at least entertain the possibility? 'In short, he used all of his considerable political and media skills to divert attention from what was, for him, the inconvenient fact of the whole business. 'He sought to establish his conspiracy narrative by weaving together a number of incidents and developments, all of which had rational explanations, into something that, with his powers of persuasion, he was able to cast as sinister.' Ms Sturgeon speaks about Mr Salmond several times in her autobiography, which also has a dedicated chapter to him, simply titled 'Alex Salmond'. In it, she speaks of an 'overwhelming sense of sadness and loss' when she found out about his death, which she said hit her harder than she had anticipated. Ms Sturgeon says the breakdown in their relationship happened long before Mr Salmond's misconduct allegations. She said it had begun to deteriorate when she became first minister in 2014 following his resignation in light of the independence referendum defeat. Ms Sturgeon claims her former boss still wanted to 'call the shots' outside of Bute House and appeared unhappy that she was no longer his inferior. She also accuses him of trying to 'distort' and 'weaponise' his alleged victims' 'trauma' through his allegations of conspiracy. Ms Sturgeon claims that Mr Salmond, who later quit the SNP to form the Alba Party, would rather have seen the SNP destroyed than be successful without him. Despite her myriad claims against her predecessor, though, Ms Sturgeon said: 'Part of me still misses him, or at least the man I thought he was and the relationship we once had. 'I know I will never quite escape the shadow he casts, even in death.'
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? review – just when you thought this case couldn't get any more confusing …
In May 2024, the New Yorker published an article with the headline 'A British nurse was found guilty of killing seven babies. Did she do it?' Access to the online version of Rachel Aviv's piece was banned in the UK due to reporting restrictions, with Letby's retrial on an additional count of attempted murder then imminent. Rules aside, asking whether Letby was in fact innocent also felt taboo at the time, a pursuit for social media conspiracy theorists. Fast forward 15 months, and 'did she do it?' is merely par for the course when it comes to the case, with even experts cited by the prosecution apparently unconvinced of Letby's guilt. This new Panorama comes hot on the heels of an ITV documentary that aired earlier this month, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?. That programme focused on holes in the evidence that was presented to the jury who found Letby guilty of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven more at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Hers had been, said Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine, a 'deeply disturbing' trial based on flawed evidence. Claims made in the trial were roundly rubbished by a panel of specialists who reviewed the case, and by experts found by the programme makers, making the evidence sound more like a series of sad anomalies than conclusive proof of wrongdoing by Letby. In any case, one would be unlikely to come away from that programme without at least a measure of doubt about her convictions. And yet, many other doubts do persist, leading – one fears – to a continued stream of programmes about the case. This is the third instalment of Panorama that Judith Moritz has made about Letby; the first, released in 2023, was subtitled The Nurse Who Killed, another last year was named Unanswered Questions, and now, in keeping with the rising sense of uncertainty, we have Who to Believe?. Like the ITV documentary, it considers the limitations of the evidence that put the 35-year-old behind bars. Unlike that documentary, though, it also considers whether the alternative version of events put forward by experts such as Modi and Shoo Lee – who rebutted the prosecution's interpretation of his work on air embolisms – holds water. It is a muddled hour of television, in which Moritz and producer-director Jonathan Coffey (who have also written a book about the case together) describe various things as conjecture, before supplying more conjecture of their own, and ultimately concluding that it's a right old mess. It certainly wouldn't be right to take the ITV documentary – or any other for that matter – as the ultimate authority on the case. But this Panorama seems to add very little in the way of conclusive information. Take, for example, this lightly heated exchange between Moritz and Coffey, who are discussing whether or not it is significant that the prosecution's expert witness, Dr Dewi Evans, changed his mind on one of the babies' cause of death, from air pumped into the stomach to an intravenous air embolism. Moritz: 'It's not like you had a situation where [someone was] saying, this person was shot … actually, no sorry, there's no gunshot wounds at all, I've decided instead they drowned.' Coffey: 'Some people would say that's exactly what we're dealing with here.' Moritz: 'It's certainly a difficult case to get your head around.' Coffey: 'Well, some people would say it's not a difficult case to get your head around, that actually they have got their head around it and the prosecution expert evidence is all over the place.' Moritz: 'Yeah – and other people would say they got their head around it and convicted her!' It's more like a drivetime phone-in than serious investigative journalism. Clearly, Moritz and Coffey care about the case, and about finding out whether Letby has indeed been wrongfully convicted. But in an investigation remarkable for the sheer number of theories involved – and now counter-theories – the addition of counter-counter-theories is hard to compute. A long tangent into the death of one child – Baby O – and how he may or may not have sustained injuries to his liver, only underscores the lack of consensus among experts, and the possibility of falling down rabbitholes at every turn. Similarly, inflated insulin levels in Baby F and Baby L lead to wildly different interpretations depending on who is explaining it all. We are told that the immunoassay tests that were used during the trial were highly unreliable, and shouldn't have been relied on in court. And yet, we also hear that those levels of insulin just cannot be explained away. Unless, of course, the tests were wrong …? And around and around we go. In determinedly not taking any claims at face value, Who to Believe? will surely confuse viewers even more, and brings us no closer to understanding whether there is indeed a compelling alternative to the events set out by the prosecution. It concludes that Letby was either 'spectacularly bad' at her job or this was a major miscarriage of justice. Taking us right back to where we started. Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? aired on BBC One and is on iPlayer now.
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Scout group ‘racially abused' after being mistaken for migrants
A group of teenage Scouts were allegedly abused online with 'offensive and racist' language, after being mistaken for a group of illegal immigrants by Welsh locals. The group had been camping at the CRAI Scout Activity Park in Newbridge when a video began to circulate online on Facebook falsely claiming that Gwent police were guarding the site. The video, which showed the group of over 30 youngsters being collected by coach, has since been deleted. Police confirmed they were investigating the comments made on the video for racism offences. Temporary chief superintendent Jason White said the force wanted to correct 'mistruths' circulating on social media and were making inquiries about posts containing 'inappropriate and offensive language'. 'The group featured in the video were visiting from another part of the country to attend a frequently used Scout camp in Newbridge and many of the people in the video are children,' he said. 'The site is not used to house anyone on a permanent basis. The site is used by our dog handlers to train our police dogs when not used for visits and our officers are not guarding the location. 'So, with that in mind, we're asking everyone to consider the tone and sentiment of their language but also for people to think twice about what they might read online and look for trusted voices within our communities.' ScoutsCymru described the venue as 'an inclusive and welcoming campsite and activity centre' with a range of activities for youth and community groups. 'We are aware of a racially aggravated incident targeting under-18s who were leaving after visiting our activity centre and are working closely with the South Wales police to address this situation,' a spokesman said. They added: 'We are committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of everyone on site and will continue to take immediate and robust action against any behaviour that threatens this.' The CRAI Scout Activity Park is a campsite and activity centre near Caerphilly in the South Wales valleys. On their website, it states they offer camping, hammocking and indoor accommodation, as well as providing a conference room, kitchen, dormitories and toilet with shower.
