Car torched in street after two thugs demanded payment of a debt
One admitted threatening or abusive behaviour and assaulting a police officer, while the other admitted wilful fireraising while on two bail orders.
A car was set alight and destroyed after two thugs demanding payment of a debt turned up in a Hamilton street late at night.
Hamilton Sheriff Court heard that Connor Brown smashed the vehicle's window and John Waddell put a bag of food waste inside and set fire to it.
Brown, 28, admitted threatening or abusive behaviour in Neilsland Street and assaulting a police officer on July 24 last year.
Waddell, 29, admitted wilful fireraising while on two bail orders.
Lewis Devoy, prosecuting, said the pair were seen in the street around midnight.
He told the court: 'Brown approached one of the terraced flats and began to kick and punch the front door and a window, causing glass to smash.
'A resident looked out of a window and heard someone say 'Get your f*****g bill paid'.
'Brown then rummaged through a wheelie bin and lifted out a branch, striking and smashing the window of a Nissan Juke car that was parked on the street.
'Waddell, meanwhile, took a bag of food waste from a bin, placed it through the broken car window and set it alight.
'Residents woken by what had happened shouted at the accused. Brown and Waddell fled and the car owner used a bucket of water to extinguish the flames.
'I'm told his vehicle was an insurance write-off and was sold for £300 for scrap.'
Descriptions of the accused were given to police and officers arrested them nearby.
Brown kicked a female officer, causing bruising and redness to her thigh.
Defence lawyer Andy Iles said Brown has a 'short but serious' criminal record. He is on medication for epilepsy.
Stephen McQuillan, defending Waddell, told the court: 'He doesn't remember much about the incident as he had been drinking heavily.'
Sheriff Louise Gallacher jailed Brown for 20 months, saying his record showed he'd been involved in 'significant violence and disorder' in the past.
The sheriff jailed Waddell for 18 months on the fireraising charge, telling him: 'This is a serious offence. It could have had more far-reaching consequences.'
The prison terms were backdated as Brown and Waddell have been in custody in connection with the case since last July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chris Brown pleads not guilty to UK assault charge
The 36-year-old appeared at London's Southwark Crown Court, where supporters filled the public gallery ahead of the hearing. The two-time Grammy Award winner, known for hits such as "Loyal," "Run It" and "Under the Influence," was granted bail in May after promising to pay a $6.7 million security fee in order to begin his "Breezy Bowl XX" tour. During the court hearing, Brown spoke only to confirm his name and date of birth and to deny the charge of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm, telling the court clerk: "Not guilty, ma'am." Chris Brown makes bail, surrenders passport as world tour looms His co-defendant, Omololu Akinlolu, 38, also pleaded not guilty to the charge of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm. The pair were granted bail until their next court appearance on July 11, when they may be asked to enter a plea to a less serious charge of assault causing actual bodily harm. Brown is also charged with having an offensive weapon, namely a bottle, but was not asked to enter a plea on Friday. Their trial is scheduled to begin on October 26, 2026. Supporters said "We love you, Chris" as Brown left the dock after the brief hearing. The R&B star was arrested at a hotel in Manchester, northern England, last month after returning to Britain for the first time since the incident two years ago.
The National
13 hours ago
- The National
SFA hit back at Rangers over John Brown 'corrupt' fine row
Bomber Brown gave his opinion when there was no goal awarded, despite the ball clearly being over the line, during Rangers' last match of last season at Easter Road. Appearing on Rangers TV that day, he said: "I would say it's corrupt." Tom Miller quickly responded: "I'm not sure we can actually say that." "Well I am saying it," Brown added. "That's a disgrace and it's the worst decision I've seen in all the years I've been in football." The SFA handed out a £3,000 fine to the Ibrox club after they were found to be in breach of the rules following the incident. Rangers issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday evening in response, as they insisted they would be watching proceedings closely relating to content produced by club TV channels of other Scottish clubs. Now, the SFA has maintained the charge was rightly passed down in line with the rulebook, as they reminded clubs of 'their responsibilities' "We note Rangers' response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal," an SFA spokesperson said. "In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein: "The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. "The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that. Read more: "Furthermore, to address the comments regarding 'rationale behind differing outcomes', we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the Compliance Officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a Notice of Complaint. "This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. "Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the Compliance Officer wrote to the club to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande. "We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. "The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group. "We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency, will publish in due course. "JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. "Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard."
Scotsman
13 hours ago
- Scotsman
Rangers accused of 'misleading comments' as SFA hit back in John Brown row
Governing body issue response to Ibrox club claims Sign up to our Football newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Football Association has accused Rangers of issuing 'misleading comments' in their criticism of punishment handed down for a remark from John Brown on the club's media channels. Rangers were fined £3,000 following a disciplinary hearing after being charged with breaching rule 38, which states that clubs should not allow any criticism of match officials 'calculated to indicate bias or incompetence' or to 'impinge upon his character'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former Ibrox player Brown, while working as a pundit on Rangers TV, claimed a decision not to award Rangers a goal at Easter Road on the final weekend of the league season was 'corruption' amid a debate over whether the ball had crossed the line. Rangers have been accused of making 'misleading comments' by the Scottish FA. | Getty Images Rangers on Thursday claimed they had 'flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels' during the hearing and questioned a 'lack of consistency' with the SFA's approach. An SFA statement read: 'We note Rangers' response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal. In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein. 'The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Furthermore, to address the comments regarding 'rationale behind differing outcomes', we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the compliance officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a notice of complaint. 'This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the compliance officer wrote to (Rangers) to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande. Former Rangers defender John Brown. | SNS Group 'We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group. 'We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency will publish in due course. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard.'
