Killer adds more time to jail term after scissors blade found in HMP Shotts cell
A New Stevenston killer serving life for the brutal murder of a security guard has had 13 months added to his jail term after a scissors blade was found in his cell.
Scott Pearson claimed he armed himself after death threats were made against him at top-security HMP Shotts.
The 28-year-old is serving a minimum 18 years for the murder of Mohammed Abu Sammour at a housing development in Newarthill in 2018.
Pearson punched and kicked the dad of four, knocking him unconscious to the ground, before kicking and stamping on his head.
He then reversed the victim's own works van over him.
Two other men were convicted of the culpable homicide of the 49-year-old site security supervisor.
The High Court in Glasgow heard Pearson and his accomplices were walking through the building site as a shortcut.
They saw Mohammed's Osprey van and planned to steal it, but he was inside the vehicle and tried to chase them away.
He was punched by Pearson and an accomplice who were both wearing knuckledusters.
A home owner in the partially-completed housing development heard voices, a van revving and a thud. He went out and found Mohammed lying on the road.
His attackers had inflicted 83 injuries on him including fractures to his face and skull, and multiple rib injuries.
Pearson fled the scene as Mohammed lay dying.
The killer appeared at Hamilton Sheriff Court on Monday when he admitted having an offensive weapon inside HMP Shotts on August 6 last year.
An allegation that he had an illegal mobile phone in his cell was dropped.
Lewis Devoy, prosecuting, said prison guards found the weapon during a search of the single-occupancy cell.
He told the court: 'They recovered what is described as a homemade pouch. It contained half of a pair of scissors that had been fashioned into a blade.
'No explanation was provided by the accused for that item being in his cell.
'He was subjected to internal prison discipline as a result of this matter.'
Defence lawyer Mary Ellen Scobbie said the pouch and blade had been given to Pearson by another prisoner.
She told the court: 'My client had been advised that his life was under threat. He had already been attacked in prison.
'Due to this threat on his life he was transferred to HMP Kilmarnock.
'His earliest date of liberation is 2036. He has been engaging well with a prison mental health team as he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
'He wants to complete rehabilitation programmes but realises that if he is to get parole he must comply with prison rules.'
Sheriff Michael Higgins told Pearson: 'It's a serious matter to possess such an item, particularly in a prison setting, and has to be marked by deterrence and punishment.
'The custodial sentence requires to run from the conclusion of your current sentence as a sentence that started today would be no punishment at all.'
The sheriff noted that Pearson's record included convictions for offences involving weapons and violence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 hours ago
- BBC News
Personal details of UK special forces and spies were included in Afghan data breach
Update: Date: 16:37 BST Title: Why the latest revelation was allowed to be reported Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court Very little was said in court today that the public was allowed to hear – but what was said paved the way for the dramatic revelation that current and former members of the UK's special forces and security services were compromised by this leak. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, told the court that the barristers for the Ministry of Defence and for a group of media organisations had reached a compromise in a closed-door hearing. That meant that the media organisations involved in the case – including The Mail, Global Media and the Independent – could now report that sensitive British officials were in the leak. That revelation had been prevented by an injunction issued earlier this week, but then Defence Secretary John Healey said in Parliament on Tuesday that a "small number" of senior military officials, MPs and other government officials had been affected. Then on Wednesday the Sun newspaper reported that special forces and spies were involved. It was enough to push the group of media organisations in this case to request an emergency hearing and ask the judge to lift the restrictions on them. Update: Date: 16:20 BST Title: The data breach was much worse than we thought Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court It was already a huge scandal earlier this week, when the country learned that the details of thousands of Afghans at risk from the Taliban had been accidentally leaked by someone in UK Special Forces headquarters, and a secret scheme had been set up to bring them to the UK. Today we can report that the data breach was much worse than previously thought: it contained personal details of more than 100 British officials including those whose identities are most closely guarded – special forces and spies. In the light of today's revelations, it is no wonder that the British government obtained an unprecedented super-injunction, a kind of gagging order that prevents the reporting of even the existence of the injunction. Taken together, the leak of the personal information of both at-risk Afghans and some of the most sensitive officials in the UK make this one of the worst security breaches in modern British history. Update: Date: 16:05 BST Title: Special forces' identities are tightly kept secrets Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court The security breach was kept under wraps by an injunction until today, when the gagging order was lifted in part by a High Court judge. Details of more than 100 British officials were included in the leaked data, which may have fallen into the hands of the Taliban. The identities of members of the UK's special forces regiments, including the SAS and SBS, and the identities of people working in the security services are tightly kept secrets. The breach occurred in February 2022, when a database was accidentally emailed outside of government by an individual working at UK Special Forces headquarters in London. The database also contained the personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the British during the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan and had applied to be resettled to the UK after the Taliban retook control in 2021. Many of those who had applied were judged to be at risk of serious harm or even death as the Taliban sought revenge against those who had worked with the British government during the war. Update: Date: 15:59 BST Title: More than 100 British people included in Afghan data leak Content: The details of more than 100 British people - including spies and special forces - were included in a massive data leak that resulted in thousands of Afghans being secretly relocated to the UK. This is a breaking story and we will bring you more information shortly - stay with us.
Daily Mirror
15 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Siblings battle over dad's £600,000 fortune as two left with just £250 in will
Laxmikant Patel's eldest daughter Anju Patel was handed her dad's £600,000 house while younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown and son Piyush Patel received just £250 each A woman is suing her sister after she was left just £250 in her father's £600,000 will with the other bagging almost every other penny. Laxmikant Patel's will handed the £600,000 family home in Cambridge Road, Harrow, to his eldest daughter, Anju Patel, 58, while leaving younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and son Piyush Patel, 62, just £250 each. Anju claims their dad explained his drastic decision by saying he had come to 'mistrust' Mrs Stewart-Brown and that she and her brother had "failed in their sense of duty" as his children. He then left them tiny cash gifts, saying: "But as a father, I have not forgotten them". The will is now under fierce challenge in court, with Mrs Stewart-Brown claiming her dad did not "know and approve" its contents, suggesting the will was "odd" as it was written in English, a language she claims he couldn't read properly. She is seeking to uphold an earlier will, splitting the £600,000 estate almost equally between the three siblings, but Anju is fighting back and insisting her dad had every reason to all but disinherit the others. He claimed the dad had branded his son Piyush a 'hugely controlling figure', alleging he had declined to scatter his dead mum's ashes in India, while also claiming Mrs Stewart-Brown - an inspector with the Care Quality Commission - 'apparently has a bad temper' and 'has taken massive advantage of her father'. At the High Court, judge Deputy Master Jason Raeburn, heard Laxmikant Patel was a gentle and hard-working character who had carved out a new life for his family after migrating from Uganda in the early 1970s, working shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife, Shardaben, ran a newsagent's. A devoutly religious man, he attended the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden, north London, every day and he and his wife donated around £180,000 to the temple throughout their lives before his death at the age of 85 in October 2021. In his previous will of October 2019 he had split his estate equally, except for an extra £50,000 bequest to Anju to balance out similar amounts he had previously handed to his other two children. But Mrs Stewart-Brown's barrister, Timothy Sherwin, highlighted allegedly 'odd' circumstances in which Laxmikant made his last August 2021 will, soon after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He said Anju claimed that her dad gave instructions for his will to Vijaykant Patel, an associate of hers from their Hare Krishna temple who claimed to have also been a friend of her father's and came to visit him in his bed in London's Northwick Hospital. 'Two days after the says he visited the deceased at the hospital,' the barrister said. 'He says that he was a friend of the deceased and that he met Anju on the ward. That is very much disputed. However, it is common ground that he knew Anju from their Hare Krishna temple. 'Vijaykant goes on to say that the deceased asked him whether he knew anyone who could make a will, and that Vijaykant told the deceased that he could do so." He said Vijaykant claims to have taken notes of the meeting, in which Laxmikant expressed "revulsion" towards Mrs Stewart-Brown and Piyush, who he said were only "after his property," before declaring: "Everything goes to Anju." The barrister continued: 'It is thus Vijaykant's evidence that he had a nearly-one-hour meeting with a man suffering from serious respiratory disease, and who had just been diagnosed with lung cancer, without incident or difficulty; and was given instructions which were completely contrary to the deceased's wishes as expressed in the earlier 2018 and 2019 wills.' Vijaykant was not a qualified lawyer, said Mr Sherwin, also commenting: 'But there is much more to excite the court's suspicion - the purported execution of the 2021 will took place shortly after the deceased was admitted to hospital for lethargy, dizziness and coughing up blood. That will was in English, a language he could not properly read,' he said. Mrs Stewart-Brown also claims her older sister drifted apart from the family after the age of 15 when she moved to India, later embracing the Hare Krishna creed in contrast to her family's Swaminarayan Hindu beliefs. It was not until around 2018 that Anju 'rejoined the family', she claims. Given that the earlier will had planned for a mainly equal split of his estate, the shift to cutting out Bhavenetta and her brother two years later was inexplicable, argued the barrister. 'The purported reason for that change – namely Bhavenetta's and Piyush's alleged wrongdoing – will be analysed at trial. One would expect a major and incontrovertible change in circumstances, however, to explain so radical a departure and there is none," he added. Claiming that Anju's relationship with her dad had been largely 'fractured' until 2018, the barrister continued: 'From 2019 onwards, however, Anju and (her husband) began to take much more involvement in the deceased's finances and personal affairs. 'They procured the 2019 will. They controlled access to the deceased, especially during the key period of August 2021. Further, they are Hare Krishna devotees, and they isolated the deceased from his previous dedication to the Swaminarayan faith, which he shared with his previous friends, and the other members of his family.' But Anju, who returned to live in the UK in 1983, has denied being distanced from her parents, with her barrister, James Kane, claiming she always "shared a close and loving relationship" with them. From the witness box, Anju herself also insisted that she had only ever been distanced from Mrs Stewart-Brown and that there was no conflict between her and her parents. 'I wasn't estranged from my family, I was with my sister. She chose to disconnect from me,' she told the judge. In fact, her barrister said, their dad had become increasingly disillusioned with Mrs Stewart-Brown citing an alleged incident from 2018 in which she 'removed important documents from a locker or safe deposit box belonging to him, including the title deeds to the property, insurance documents and bank statements'. 'The documentary evidence makes plain that by - at the latest - October 2019, Laxmikant had formed a sharply negative view of both Piyush and Bhavenetta,' argued Mr Kane. By the time he drew up his 2019 will, he was already deeply disgruntled with Mrs Stewart-Brown and his son, claimed the barrister, citing his comments to the will writer at the time in which he said Bhavenetta 'has taken massive advantage of her father'. 'Although he did not act on this view immediately, after his diagnosis with cancer in August 2021, he decided to act," he said. "He asked his friend Vijaykant to draw up a will for him in favour of Anju, the child he felt had done most for him. 'Vijaykant did so and Laxmikant executed the will. "The evidence of Vijaykant and the attesting witnesses is clear that Laxmikant knew perfectly well what the effect of executing the will would be and approved of it.' As executor of the estate Vijaykant Patel is defending the claim alongside Anju, while the two sisters' older brother, Piyush, who lives in Texas, is taking a neutral stance. The trial is continuing.
ITV News
17 hours ago
- ITV News
Northumbria Police participation in Newcastle Pride event ruled unlawful by high court judge
A police force acted unlawfully by allowing its officers to take part in a Pride event last year, a High Court judge has ruled. Lindsey Smith, who lodged a complaint against Northumbria Police, describes herself as a 'gender critical' lesbian. She took legal action against the force over its decision to allow officers to participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City event last July, in which she also participated. Ms Smith argued that officers' participation meant they would have been unable to remain impartial if a dispute between those with similar beliefs and transgender rights supporters, had occurred. A Northumbria Police spokesperson said the force is committed to "providing each and every person of our wonderful region with an outstanding policing service". Uniformed officers marched at the event last year with some carrying flags which included Pride colours alongside police insignia, and others wearing uniforms with the word 'police' in the Pride colours. There was also a static display staffed by uniformed officers, which displayed a Progressive Pride flag, which includes representation of transgender and non-binary people, people of marginalised ethnicities and those living with Aids, the judge said. A police van with the colours of the transgender Pride flag painted on its sides was also present, the court was told. Lawyers for Ms Smith told the court that the officers' involvement breached impartiality rules, and that the decision to allow them to take part was unlawful. Barristers for the force opposed the challenge, claiming the decision, made by Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine, was within her 'discretion'. In a ruling on Wednesday (17 July), Mr Justice Linden said the decision relating to last year's event was unlawful, but that it was up to the force to decide how it approaches the 2025 event, which is due to take place this weekend. In his judgment, he said that Ms Smith is opposed to 'gender ideology', which she believes is 'wrong and dangerous' but has been 'embraced' by the organisers of the event, Northern Pride. While Ms Smith agreed that the event should be policed, she objected to officers 'associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating', the judge said. In a letter to the force before the legal action, Ms Smith said the involvement of officers in the event led her to conclude it was 'biased against gender critical people'. In response, the force said it considered that the decision to allow officers to participate in the event was a 'lawful exercise' of the 'discretion' of Ms Jardine, who considered that police participation in Pride was 'necessary and justified'. Ms Jardine also said in her evidence to the court that she believed preventing officers from attending would be contrary to her duties under the Equality Act. In his ruling, Mr Justice Linden said the participation of officers went against impartiality rules. He found that those who opposed Northern Pride's view on transgender rights were 'not welcome' at its events, and that uniformed officers' involvement meant they 'demonstrated support for the cause'. He said: 'It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the officers in question might be called on to deal with a clash between gender critical people and supporters of gender ideology, and therefore situations where the former had cause for concern as to whether they were being dealt with impartially.' He added: 'Leaving aside the question whether the activities in question would be likely to interfere with the relevant officers' impartial discharge of their duties, on any view they would be likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that they may do so.' He concluded that the police displays added to the 'impression' that the force was 'associating itself with a particular viewpoint and, as far as gender critical people were concerned, taking sides'. In a statement, a Northumbria Police spokesperson said: 'The officers, staff and volunteers of Northumbria Police are dedicated and passionate about providing each and every person of our wonderful region with an outstanding policing service. 'In doing so, we recognise not all communities share the same level of confidence in policing for a variety of reasons. We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us. 'Part of that is us being visible in those communities and playing an active part in our force area. Throughout the year, we will have an important role to play in a variety of events, including parades and festivals. 'During these events, while our primary aim is to keep people safe, it also provides us with an opportunity to engage with people, including those who may have less confidence in policing. 'It is vitally important they feel supported and we continue to build their trust in us. 'That is why we felt it important to challenge the case which was brought against us and which has implications for wider policing. 'We will work through the ruling to understand the implications, while staying true to our values of fairness, visibility, and support for all. 'Our commitment to providing an outstanding service to all our communities will remain unchanged.'
