15-year-old boy remanded over Belfast riot charges
The teenager has been charged with two counts of rioting and one count of possession of a weapon with intent.
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A 15-year-old boy has been remanded over charges of rioting in Belfast.
The charges relate to rioting in the Broadway area of the city on July 16 and in the Sandy Row area on August 5.
The teenager has been charged with two counts of rioting, on July 16 and on August 5 and one count of possession of a weapon with intent on July 16.
He appeared before Belfast Magistrates’ Court via videolink on Wednesday morning and indicated he understood the charges.
Police opposed an application for bail on the basis of a high risk of re-offending, risk to public safety and risk of damage to property.
The court heard that on July 15-16, the Broadway area saw “sustained and violent disorder from a small group of males” and police were targeted with petrol bombs, fireworks and masonry. The defendant was described as being identified in the area on July 16 from police drone footage being within the “group of main protagonists” and “during a critical time being part of a group throwing masonry”.
A police officer said during interview, the defendant admitted it was him in the footage and that he threw masonry, “because everyone else was doing it”.
Meanwhile, they said on Saturday August 3, Belfast experienced widespread violent disorder not seen in years in the city, which led to racially aggravated crime with businesses and hospitality premises being the target of criminal damage and arson.
On Monday August 5, they said the defendant was identified on CCTV with a group of males pushing towards the entrance to a hostel and police officers pushed the group back, however, the group with the defendant re-emerged and officers retreated to their vehicles while coming under fire with missiles and bottles.
They said during interview, the defendant admitted his presence and that he was with his friends. Asked why he was there, the defendant stated he was with his friends.
“The defendant was shown footage of further disorder throughout the night where the same group are targeting police, blocking roads and burning bins, setting fireworks off into the supermarket which was badly damaged on August 3,” they said.
“The defendant can be seen speaking with these offenders as this is ongoing. He has the opportunity to stand elsewhere but he stands with them. In interview, he stated he was just watching what was happening.”
They said police contend the defendant placed himself with a group of friends who “have been the most active violent offenders in the area of Broadway and Sandy Row on July 15-16 and August 3 and 5”, linked to four days of the “most serious violence Belfast has seen in years”.
They added: “The United Kingdom is currently seeing a huge spike in public disorder with racial undertones. This has seen police attacked and businesses belonging to ethnic backgrounds being attacked and burned. Over the last few days, Belfast bore the brunt and experienced mass civil unrest. Businesses in the Sandy Row area were burnt out and investigations are ongoing into that.”
A defence lawyer said the applicant for bail is a 15-year-old child and described him as vulnerable.
“He seems to have been drawn to these incidents of disorder like a moth to the light,” he said.
“Although in relation to the first incident, he has accepted throwing a piece of what police describe as masonry, but what I understand is closer to a stone. One stone in the first incident. In relation to the second and third incidents, the case really against him is based on his presence in the area which he has frankly and honestly accepted. He is not observed throwing anything or damaging any property. He is simply there, along with depressingly, a lot of other very young persons.”
Bail was refused on the basis of a suitable bail address not being supplied and risk to the public.
The judge said at this point in time, there is no approved address offered by the defence, “therefore the test is met that it is necessary to protect the public because of the ongoing disturbances to remand him in custody”.
He added: “If an alternative address is made available, because he is a child, the court will look very sympathetically upon that.”