Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, 19 September 2021

Northumberland Man Assaulted Takeaway Boss in Kebab Rage Incident

A Northumberland man flew into a drunken rage and assaulted a takeaway owner because he was dissatisfied with the food he was served.

Paul Kelly, 43, of Hexham, admitted one charge of assault by beating when he appeared at Newcastle Magistrates' Court on Friday, 17th September 2021.

Assault by beating, an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Kelly, who has previous convictions for offences against the person, purchased a kebab from Hexham Pizza on the evening of Wednesday, 7th July 2021.

He returned to the shop shortly after 11 pm to complain about the standard of the food.

Omar Ahmad, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was swearing and being aggressive. The victim says the defendant picked up a kebab box and threw it at him, hitting him in the face and causing immediate pain to his right eye.

"He offered the defendant his money back and gave the money to him, which included coins.

"The defendant threw the money back at him, which hit him."

Kelly remained in the shop for several more minutes, shouting and swearing before he left the premises.

A victim personal statement by the takeaway owner, which was read to the court, said: "This incident made me feel scared because I try to be nice to everyone I meet.

"This male was so aggressive to me then assaulted me, even when I tried to give him his money back."

Kelly appeared in court unrepresented.

He said: "It was totally my fault - it was a disgrace. I'd had a few drinks and was not happy with the food I'd got.

"It was not just one-sided. I wanted to apologise to the owner of the shop but I got told not to."

Magistrates ordered Kelly to pay £150 in compensation to the owner of the takeaway.

No further details are provided about sentencing, so it may have been a standalone compensation order (in which case no surcharge would be due).

No comments: