A man who assaulted a cyclist who had discovered him stealing his bike and insulted him due to his religion has been sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court.
The victim had been visiting his girlfriend’s flat in Pitsmoor, Sheffield on 12 February this year when he discovered 50 year old Jason Galloway fiddling with the bike’s lock, reports The Star.
The bike’s owner was taking photos of Galloway when the latter began punching and kicking him and making insulting comments about Islam, as well as banging his head against a wall.
Galloway, from Sheffield, pleaded guilty to attempted theft of a bicycle and religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The complainant stated he has been left feeling afraid and suffering panic attacks and he no longer feels safe at his girlfriend’s home.
Galloway, who has 33 previous convictions for 75 offences, pleaded guilty to a religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm and to attempted theft after the incident on February 12.
Rebecca Tanner, defending, said Galloway has had an on-going battle with drugs which is linked to the offending and he has been remanded in custody since the offences.
Ms Tanner added that Galloway has also addressed his drug problems while he has been in custody and he has been stabilised with a methadone prescription.
In mitigation, Rebecca Tanner said that Galloway had struggled with drug addiction but has dealt with those issues while on remand and is receiving methadone.
“He’s turned 50 and he feels, in his words he, ‘doesn’t have another sentence in me’,” she told the court.
Recorder Felicity Davies told Galloway: “Your offence was not motivated by any religious objection or bias. Rather, when you were caught stealing you were searching about for abusive things to say and you picked on the complainant’s religion and you were abusive.”
“You have come to the conclusion you are too old for this and it is time to make a life that does not involve committing offences and getting punished for them,” she added.
She sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment, although due to the time he had already spent on remand, it was expected that he would be released.
Add new comment
26 comments
"Galloway, who has 33 previous convictions for 75 offences"
Can we not just mulch these people into compost? Rehabilitation clearly doesn't work on them.
It seems odd that the recorder asserted that the assault was not religiously motivated, while the defendant pleaded guilty to that very charge.
This.
Religiously aggravated isn't necessarily the same thing as religiously motivated. For religious aggravation, it's enough to demonstrate hostility towards someone due to their religion in the course of the offence, even if the original offence was motivated by something entirely different.
I think the legal definition of religiously aggravated assault requires that it demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on his or her membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or if the offence is (wholly or partly) motivated by racial or religious hostility. (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-co...)
So the assault wasn't motivated by religious hostility but it clearly demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on his (presumed) religion and so was still "religiously aggravated".
Thanks for your succinct explanations gents, I see that.
I'm a Jedi - when people misuse Force it's always religiously motivated!
Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
Isn't that a statement of absolute?
Absolutely not
He's off his tits on methadone. He probably dooesn't even remember being in court.
I got a strange sense of deja vu while reading this article.
Parts of the article gave me a strange sense of deja vu.
I think you'll find you're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself, I think you'll find.
They repeated themselves three times. Three times. Why would they repeat themselves three times?
Convicted 33 times and I suspect he used addiction as his mitigation for committing the offences each time as well.
I am not a lock them up and throw away the key type of person but how many more chances do you give someone?
Obviously what's been done so far isn't working.
There is massive evidence that prison doesn't work for preventing reoffending, particularly where addiction is a factor. If sentences were used to address underlying issues and prepare offenders to make a positive contribution to society (get a job and pay tax) it would be better for the offender AND the rest of us.
Aside from addiction, very few people have it in them to radically change their lifestyle once they get to fifty years old.
Well, it sounds like he's been in prison a fair bit ("he feels, in his words, he 'doesn't have another sentence in me'"), so that obviously hasn't worked. If he's 50 now and we assume he will live to, say, 70, he will cost the exchequer somewhere around £800,000. A fraction of that would probably be sufficient to provide the necessary treatment and resources to help him become a functional and even contributing member of society, but politicians who are terrified of being accused of being soft on crime generally prefer to spend the extra on retribution, which provably doesn't work, rather than rehabilitation, which provably does.
Nonsense. It's much more important to feel a smug sense of justice served.
Yes he has been in prison before:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/prolific-thief-jailed-stealing-shop...
Bingo. Our prison system doesn't have positive outcomes in general, and certainly not by design. in any case, if society hasn't the structures to support people from the beginning, you end up relying on the CJS to fix things that were broken long before it was apparent. This ignores the fact that many victims of crime are themselves in poverty, suffering illness, or are leading complex lives.
I imagine that few of us here actively made considered choices to be the upstanding citizens that we are - there is rarely a damascene moment, no fork in the road.
It is perfectly possible that he used addiction as mitigation to avoid prison - wouldn't you? That does not mean that addiction, its drivers, and its outcomes don't exist and aren't pertinent to the situation.
Looking forward to some of our usual trolls (and I don't mean you) coming out and saying "you care more about the offender" but this misses the point. I want to see a situation where these instances are mitigated a much as possible. Imprisoning people, brutalising them, and then turning them out to do it again (our current model) utterly fails to prevent people from suffering, and generates new victims
Providing the structures and frameworks to support people in difficulty would help reduce the number of victims, and be available for those we don't see - those that don't get caught in teh CJS, but are none the less still struggling.
Remarkably quiet and sensible on this thread, but if you want trolls, trolls you shall have!
Cheeky!
The war on drugs. As Bill Hicks said the only war that's being won by people who don't even realise they're fighting. His caustic but sweary take here.
If they called it the war on economics I think people might see that we need another approach.
This guy though - either he's a slow learner or something's amiss with the reeducation system.
33 convictions for 75 offences with addiction a probable motive... War on drugs going really well there.
We have to start treating addiction as a health issue, or we are doomed to deal with repeated property crimes, broken families and organised crime making serious money protected by violence.
My wife used to work with a voluntary sector diversion from custody project for illegal drug users, and that was way more successful in turning users away from drugs, and into a more productive and less chaotic lifestyle, than sending them to prison.
The problem is that getting on a methadone prescription is very much only the start of the process. If you don't deal with why they use and why their life is chaotic the whole cycle is doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat.
Hence 33 convictions and 75 previous offences (and probably dozens more that never came to trial).