Paramedics rush to help passed out man who then threatened them with knife
A drugged-up man threatened to kill a paramedic with a kitchen knife after he was found unconscious in the street.
Jordan Wright, 28, of Ty Heddlu, Wales, pulled a four-to-five-inch blade from his pocket and shouted at bystanders: "This knife is going in your f****** chest... Stay the f**** away from me." He then told a paramedic and a witness: "I am going to kill you and cut you up."
A sentencing hearing at Cardiff Crown Court on Wednesday heard Wright had been treated by a paramedic and an assistant on July 9 after being found unconscious in Tonteg, near Pontypridd. Believed to be under the influence of drugs, an IV was administered to deliver naloxone. It comes after man called 999 for 'his own protection' - then ended up jailed himself.
He woke suddenly, swinging his arms and shouting: "Get away from me. Don't f****** touch me," and his behaviour was described in court as "violent, erratic, and unpredictable." Wright ripped off his oxygen mask, threw medical equipment around, and smashed an oxygen canister on the floor, releasing flammable gas, Wales Online reports.
He ripped the cannula from his arm, causing blood to spray over the equipment. Amid the chaos, he shouted: "You better give me back my f****** phone," as paramedics explained it was in his bag.
The court heard Wright kicked over his coat and bag, spilling the contents onto the pavement. When offered a bandage for his cut, he refused, saying "no. Let me bleed."
Further attempts to calm him failed. He insulted a man and tried to throw a ceramic bowl, then swayed and collapsed, losing consciousness again. On regaining consciousness, he again refused treatment: "No. No-one touches my body."
Police and ambulance staff arrived, but Wright continued to act aggressively, refusing treatment and leaving the ambulance. He was arrested and taken to the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, where he spat at a police officer and was placed in a spit hood.
When he was taken into custody, he was found with a bag of green vegetable matter, a bag of white powder, and a bag of white crystals. The knife was later recovered from a front garden near the incident.
When interviewed under caution, Wright claimed he remembered nothing and said he had suffered a "mental health episode" after being hit in the head with a brick four days earlier.
Wright later pleaded guilty to affray, possession of cannabis, threatening a person with a blade, possession of a kitchen knife, and assaulting a constable. He has seven previous convictions, including possession of a bladed article, possession of cannabis, and a public order offence. In mitigation, Kevin Seal said his client has mental health difficulties and had been of good character until the Covid pandemic.
Wright was sentenced to a total of 58 weeks imprisonment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
9 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024, and that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
Rhyl Journal
10 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024, and that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
Western Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. Philip Coppel KC Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Several protests have been held outside the Bell Hotel (Yui Mok/PA) In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded. Piers Riley-Smith He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
