Fife nightclub worker glassed, headbutted and stamped on by four people in Halloween attack
A Kirkcaldy nightclub worker was set upon by a four-strong family group in a violent Halloween attack.
The employee at the town's Society venue was hit on the head with a flying glass, slapped, headbutted, chased into a staff room, kicked, punched and stamped on, Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court heard.
In the dock for sentencing were 50-year-old Steven Craigie, of Winding Wheel Way, Bowhill, and Ben Clark, 24, of Allan Park, Cowdenbeath.
Beside them were 20-year-old Chloe Craigie, of Roberts Street, Kirkcaldy and Laihla Craigie, 18, also of Winding Wheel Way.
They all admitted that on October 31 at Society, Charlotte Street, whilst acting together they assaulted their victim.
The charge states the group repeatedly pushed him, threw a drink over him and threw a glass at him, striking him on the head with it.
They repeatedly slapped him on the head, pinned him against a wall and headbutted him.
The accused then repeatedly punched him on the head and body, pursued him into a private staff area and forced open a private door.
They climbed over a counter in the bar area to gain access to further assault him.
Next, they repeatedly kicked and punched him when he was on the ground, repeatedly stamped on his body and threw a plant at him, all to his injury.
The Crown accepted that a comment had been made before the assault but no further details were given.
The court was told that Steven Craigie's position was that something was said to his daughters by the bar worker.
Sheriff Steven Borthwick said that under the law, when a group acts together, they are responsible for offences together, although different people were doing different things in the assault.
'Each person is responsible for the acts of the group,' he told them.
He went on: 'This was an attack on a man at his place of work and was an outrageous incident.
'There was an element of provocation but not in the legal sense. Certain comments were made which led to an over-reaction on your part.'
Steven Craigie and Ben Clark were each sentenced to a community payback order with 120 hours of unpaid work.
Chloe and Laihla Craigie were each ordered to do 80 hours of unpaid work and the latter was also put on supervision for a year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
42 minutes ago
- STV News
Calls for increased sentence for Army officer who raped woman in her own home
Scotland's senior law officer has called for an increased prison sentence to be imposed on an Army officer who raped a woman in her home after contacting her through an internet dating app. The Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, told the criminal appeal court in Edinburgh that the judge who jailed Calum MacGregor for four and a half years had erred. She told the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Beckett, sitting with Lord Doherty and Lord Armstrong: 'The Crown say that this was a case where the seriousness of the offence simply was not properly understood by the trial judge.' She said: 'In my submission it is a matter of great public importance that this appeal is advanced and considered.' The Lord Advocate said it was appropriate to impose a more severe penalty because of the seriousness of the crime committed and it could provide guidance to sentencers generally. The Lord Advocate told the court: 'This was a forceful, aggressive rape.' She added the woman prepared a victim impact statement in which she said she was unable to work for six months following the crime due to mental health issues. She was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and became afraid of the dark. She suffered flashbacks and saw a psychologist. The senior law officer said: 'This had a very serious impact on the wellbeing of this young woman.' Defence solicitor advocate Iain McSporran KC argued that the sentence imposed on MacGregor fell within the range that a judge could consider as reasonably appropriate and was not unduly lenient. He said it met the requirements for punishment and deterrence in a case where the offender has no criminal background and had led a pro-social life. Army captain MacGregor, 30, had denied raping the woman at a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh earlier this year and maintained that sex was consensual and that he had a reasonable belief in consent. But a majority of the jury found MacGregor, whose domicile of citation was given as a parachute engineer regiment in Suffolk, guilty of the crime. He was convicted of pushing the 28-year-old woman onto a bed at an address in Edinburgh, kissing her body, seizing her wrists, restraining her, repeatedly grabbing her breasts, removing her clothing and underwear, carrying out sex acts on her and raping her on December 14 in 2021. During the trial MacGregor told the jury that he believed the woman, who he met through the dating app Hinge, was consenting and said: 'At no point in the evening did she say 'no' or 'stop'.' He said he was 'pretty horrified' and 'shocked' when he later saw pictures of bruising on her breasts and told the court that he did not mean to hurt her. The woman said she told him that she did not want sex to happen but was pushed on to a bed and subjected to the sex assault. MacGregor, a first offender, said he was never in trouble before or since the incident and that he was in the Officer Training Corps at St Andrews University where he studied philosophy before going through the Army officer selection course. The court heard he served his country in the military in the UK and abroad and had an exemplary record. The trial judge told him at a sentencing hearing in February that a prison sentence was the only appropriate disposal given the serious nature of the offence. Judge Alison Stirling said: 'You expect to be discharged from the Army as a result of your conviction.' MacGregor followed the proceedings in the appeal court hearing the Crown appeal against his sentence by a TV link to prison. Lord Beckett said the judges would take time to carefully consider submissions in the case and give a decision at a later date. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Spectator
12 hours ago
- Spectator
This is a dangerous moment for free speech
Britain without blasphemy laws is a surprisingly recent development. Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales only in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021. But that was the final burial of a law dead for much longer. The last execution for the crime was in 1697; the last imprisonment in 1921; and the last successful trial in 1977 – Mary Whitehouse's prosecution of Gay News for publishing a poem about a centurion's rape of Christ's corpse. Even if 11 local councils banned Monty Python's Life of Brian two years later, the trend since has been towards trusting that the Almighty is big enough to fend for himself. Yet this week the clock seemed to have been turned back to around ad 650. Hamit Coskun was convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence motivated 'by hostility towards… followers of Islam'. His crime? Setting fire to a Quran, shouting 'fuck Islam' and declaring the faith a 'religion of terrorism' outside the Turkish consulate. The Crown argued Coskun's demonstration could not have been peaceful, since it provoked a Muslim man to attack him. The alternative explanation – that Coskun had, in a rather regrettable way, proved his main point, eluded the professionals of Lord Hermer's Crown Prosecution Service. Coskun was originally charged with the exciting new crime of harassing the 'religious institution of Islam' – treating a faith with 1.9 billion followers like someone with hurt feelings. Although that charge was not pursued, the eventual ruling's impact is effectively the same. Henceforth, anyone criticising a religion is at the mercy of the tender sensibilities of any bystanders.
Spectator
12 hours ago
- Spectator
Why I burnt the Quran
My name is Hamit Coskun and I've just been convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence. My 'crime'? Burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Moments later, I was attacked in full view of the street by a man. I was hospitalised. Then I was arrested. Some may say that book-burning is a poor substitute for reasoned debate. I would counter that it was a symbolic, non-violent form of expression intended to draw attention to the ongoing move from the secularism of my country of birth to a regime which embraces hardline Islam. As I told Westminster Magistrates' Court, what I did constituted political protest and the law, as I understood it, was on my side. CPS guidance makes clear that legitimate protest can be offensive and on occasion must be, if it is to be effective. In that spirit, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not just polite speech but speech that offends, shocks or disturbs. Political expression, above all, is meant to enjoy the strongest protection. Alas, the judge ruled otherwise. And the reasoning deployed to convict me raises troubling questions, not only about the scope of public order law but about whether Britain is witnessing the quiet return of blasphemy laws. Although the man who assaulted me is being prosecuted separately, the Crown says his action helped to prove my guilt. It argued that because I was attacked, my behaviour must not have been peaceful. Under this logic, 'disorderly' no longer depends on conduct, but on how offended or aggressive someone else chooses to be in response.
