Families weep as two students who 'cooked' TV in oven as drunken prank are JAILED for two years

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:00 PM on 25th February 2011

 

• Comments (184)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

 

 

A pair of students who set fire to a television by placing it in an oven at their halls of residence were jailed for two years today.

 

Joshua Hart, 20, and 21-year-old Daniel Gyi decided to put the front part of the TV monitor in the electric oven in the kitchen of their flat in Endcliffe Crescent, Sheffield, after they had spent the afternoon drinking.

Two weeks previously, biomedical sciences student Gyi and Hart, who was studying Spanish and maths, had finished their first year exams at the University of Sheffield.

 

Jailed: The students, from Sheffield University, were sent to prison for two years for setting fire to the television set in their halls of residence

 

Prosecutor Elisabeth Martin told Sheffield Crown Court the pair had spent the afternoon in the pub drinking and watching football before returning to their four-storey block of student flats.

 

She told the court seven other people - two men and five women - were also in the block at the time of the incident, which was around 3.30am on June 26 last year.

 

Describing what happened on the night she said: 'A chair that's in the hallway of the flat had been set alight and gone out.

 

 

More...

 

 

• Pervert who groomed 14-year-old girl for sex escapes prison after judge says 'you're not a real paedophile'
  
• Teacher who taught pupil racist 'rape' rhyme so he could remember lesson is guilty of misconduct
  
• Mother of two-year-old takes picture of her son as he climbs into a tumble dryer
  

 

'In the communal area of the flat itself a bag had been placed over one of the alarms and the heat detectors.

 

'A further heat sensor in the kitchen had been covered up with a plastic bag, a Tesco carrier bag.

 

'An appliance was found in the oven. What happened in this particular chain of events was that a monitor, a TV monitor, had been placed in the electric oven.'

Ms Martin said Hart and Gyi had been drinking in the pub during the afternoon before returning home where they then decided to throw the television off the top of the block of flats.

 

The front part broke off and they took this back inside, she said, before setting fire to a chair and putting the television in the oven.

 

When thick smoke started pouring from the oven, the defendants panicked before they left the flat, she said.

 

 

'Two fire engines were called to the block of flats and in later investigations fire officers found that the smoke in the kitchen had become so hot it had settled on the floor'

 

 

In police interviews she said Gyi said: 'We did it, we put the TV in the oven and switched it on. When it started to smoke we put the extractor fan on.

 

'When I saw the fire engines I s***t myself.'

The court heard he also told police: 'We just fancied burning it for no reason'.

Hart, she said, described himself as 'particularly drunk that night'.

 

The defendants wandered off, Ms Martin told the court, and Ben Rigby and Jake Nolton, who were in the block of flats that night, were woken by the heat alarms going off and proceeded to wake up the other five people in the premises.

It was only when Hart and Gyi eventually came back and saw how bad the smoke was that they alerted the security officer on the premises, the court heard.

 

Judge Peter Kelson said he could not ignore the seriousness of the case but took into account their previous good character

 

Two fire engines were called to the block of flats and in later investigations fire officers found that the smoke in the kitchen had become so hot it had settled on the floor.

 

Gyi and Hart both eventually admitted they had caused the incident and pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage reckless as to whether life was endangered.

Their defence counsel, Peter McCartney, said both young men had committed a huge error in judgment by putting the plastic part of the television in the oven.

 

He said: 'It was extremely reckless. It was not, however, malicious.'

But Judge Peter Kelson QC said he could not ignore the seriousness of the offence the pair had committed but took into account that they were both of previous good character.

He said: 'Doing the best I can to balance everything and with a heavy heart knowing the sorrow and grief it will cause to your families, I sentence you both to an immediate custodial sentence of two years.

'You will serve half of that.'

As the pair were taken down their families, who were present in court, sobbed loudly and hugged each other.

PC Rachael Burgin, from South Yorkshire Police, said officers agreed with the judge's decision in the 'unique and complex case'.

 

She added: 'The incident could have resulted in tragic consequences had it remained undetected.

'We have to pay credit to Jake and Ben for intervening. I agree fully with Judge Kelson's decision.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360658/Students-cooked-TV-oven-drunken-prank-jailed-years.html#ixzz1F0etIaSN

British judges still wear those silly wigs? lul

Seems a bit harsh for an obvious act of drunken idiocy which didn't actually harm anyone or damage the building badly.

Seems a bit harsh for an obvious act of drunken idiocy which didn't actually harm anyone or damage the building badly.

 

But the point is, it could have easily done so. Lives were definitely put at risk as a result.:dozey:

But the point is, it could have easily done so. Lives were definitely put at risk as a result.:dozey:

 

But they wern't,lives are at risk if you drive too fast in a built up area(which I don't condone either), are you likely to go to prison for it if you didn't actually hurt anyone?, of course not, the same as how these guys shouldn't have, although there's likely no reasoning with your sensationalist Daily Mail reader attitude.

That rather depends how reckless the driving was. If you were drunk and driving at double the speed limit in a built-up area, a jail sentence would almost certainly be deserved.

In this case, a lot of lives were put at risk by an act of gross stupidity.

The student who dropped the fire extinguisher from the roof of that building during the riots wasn't intending to harm anyone (as far as we know), but someone could have easily been killed, which is why he was sent down.

A message has to be sent out to put a stop to such moronic behaviour. Being drunk should not be accepted as a defence, either.

British judges still wear those silly wigs? lul

 

lol question ignored.

It was rhetorical.

That rather depends how reckless the driving was. If you were drunk and driving at double the speed limit in a built-up area, a jail sentence would almost certainly be deserved.

In this case, a lot of lives were put at risk by an act of gross stupidity.

The student who dropped the fire extinguisher from the roof of that building during the riots wasn't intending to harm anyone (as far as we know), but someone could have easily been killed, which is why he was sent down.

A message has to be sent out to put a stop to such moronic behaviour. Being drunk should not be accepted as a defence, either.

 

I know someone who only got an 8 week ban and a fine for 85 MPH in a 30 limit, wasn't a clever thing to do, neither is drink driving or other stupid things, but do these guys deserve to spend a year in prison for being drunken dickheads who didn't actually hurt anyone or cause that much damage, no they don't, they should have got a fine to pay for the damage and a good years worth of community service every weekend as opposed to this senseless knee jerk reaction, some rapists have gotten off easier or in your eyes is that a lesser crime?.

Sooo... they're only spending one year in jail?

The only reason they have been so harshly punished is because this is a rare case and the law doesn't know how to deal with rare cases, especially when the media is involved. TWO YEARS?! FOR THIS?!

 

Let's say instead of doing the rare and random act of putting a TV in an over, if they had let off fireworks inside, equally as dangerous (And in truth I don't think either act is a direct threat to anyone's life it's just stupid) we wouldn't even know about this, and they wouldn't even had a month's jail sentence never mind 2 years.

 

A message has to be sent out to put a stop to such moronic behaviour.

 

*Puke*

 

Yes because there is a growing community of people putting televisions in ovens. Do you have no empathy whatsoever? If you were the boys families you would not be so accepting that they've been 'made an example' of, its not justice to make examples of people and it shouldn't be a part of the law, you should be punished according to the severity of the crime and not the context that happens to surround it, and in this case luckily the crime was harmless.

 

If society needs to stop putting televisions in ovens (:wtf:) then that's something that needs to be dealt with by institutions within society, you can't just harshly penalise a couple of boys who haven't done much wrong, even if it does make this highly troubling fad of putting televisions in ovens (:wtf:) go away.

Irrelevant story, always posted by Mark.

It was only by good fortune that nobody was killed or seriously injured. That's the crux of the matter.

You cannot argue that simply because there were no fatalities, the incident should be swept under the carpet.

If a five-year-old had done this, it could have been argued they wouldn't have been aware of the possible consequences.

These guys were more than old enough to know what they were doing was potentially dangerous.

The only thing which could possibly be disputed is the length of the sentence.

 

As I said before, there is no suggestion that the moron who threw that fire extinguisher from the roof of that building intended to kill or injure anyone, but the fact of the matter is that it easily could have, which is why he was sent down.

In this situation, far more people could have been killed or injured. Therefore there was no less reason to jail these two than the fire extinguisher guy.

 

It's about time people started to take responsibility for their reckless actions, whether drunk or not.

Intoxication should never be accepted as a "defence" anyway. If you can't get drunk without acting like a total moron and putting other people at risk, you shouldn't drink alcohol - end of story.:dozey:

ok

11 January 2011 Last updated at 15:50 GMT

 

Student protester jailed for throwing fire extinguisher

 

 

A student who admitted throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of a central London building during the student fees protests has been jailed.

Edward Woollard, 18, from Hampshire, was among protesters who broke into the Tory party headquarters and emerged on the roof on 10 November.

He was jailed for two years and eight months after admitting at an earlier hearing to committing violent disorder.

Police said his actions "could have resulted in catastrophic injury".

The student, who hoped to be the first member of his family to go on to higher education, was filmed throwing an empty metal fire extinguisher from the seventh-floor of 30 Millbank as hundreds of people gathered in a courtyard below.

The canister narrowly missed a line of police officers attempting to protect the looted and vandalised building from further damage on a day when 66 people were arrested.

"It is my judgment, exceedingly fortunate that your action did not result in death or very serious injury either to a police officer or a fellow protester” . Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC Southwark Crown Court

The Brockenhurst College sixth-form student later went with his mother to a police station and admitted to throwing the extinguisher after footage of the incident was shown on television.

Woollard, from Dibden Purlieu, in the New Forest, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court.

'Deeply regrettable' Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC told the student the public had a right to protection from violence.

"It is deeply regrettable, indeed a shocking thing, for a court to have sentence a young man such as you to a substantial term of custody," the judge said.

"But the courts have a duty to provide the community with such protection from violence as they can.

"This means sending out a very clear message to anyone minded to behave in this way that an offence of this seriousness will not be tolerated."

He added it was "exceedingly fortunate that your action did not result in death or very serious injury either to a police officer or a fellow protester".

 

Edward Woollard arriving at Southwark Crown Court

 

The judge praised Woollard's mother, Tania Garwood, saying he was taking into account her "extraordinary and courageous conduct" in persuading him to give himself up.

In a police statement read to the court, Woollard apologised for his actions, saying: "When I was told I had potentially endangered people, I felt sick.

"I was absolutely not intending that anyone in any way would be hurt."

His barrister, Hossein Zahir, said Woollard acted in a "moment of madness" and the offence had "jeopardised his future and prospects".

In a statement, Brockenhurst College said: "The college views what occurred as extremely serious and Edward Woollard has been on permanent exclusion since the incident."

Woollard was told that he would serve at least half of his sentence for violent disorder in a young offenders institution.

Cdr Bob Broadhurst, the Metropolitan Police's head of public order, said the sentence was "a significant period of imprisonment" which would have "a significant impact" on Wollard's future.

"I would ask those intent on causing violence and undermining those committed to peaceful protest to reflect on today's outcome."

For once I agree with Mark.

If someone does something dangerous and reckless that could have injured someone (it's lucky they didn't) then they should be punished.

 

Would it make more sense if the idea was "Well, if you do something stupid but nobody gets hurt that's fine, but if you hurt someone then you get in trouble"? Then everyone would do stupid acts as they knew they would only get in trouble if they killed/hurt someone. And okay, maybe this time it wouldn't have killed someone, but what if next time they got drunk they decided to throw the burning tv off a roof? Or left the apartment with the tv still burning, causing a fire and killing people?

So maybe 2 years was a bit much of a sentence, but I'm glad they got caught. It's never fair for someone to be killed or injured for another person's stupidity.

In a police statement read to the court, Woollard apologised for his actions, saying: "When I was told I had potentially endangered people, I felt sick.

"I was absolutely not intending that anyone in any way would be hurt."

His barrister, Hossein Zahir, said Woollard acted in a "moment of madness" and the offence had "jeopardised his future and prospects".

 

Oh, so in that case he shouldn't have been jailed either, I suppose, because he didn't intend to hurt anyone, and nobody was hurt................... :dozey:

For once I agree with Mark.

If someone does something dangerous and reckless that could have injured someone (it's lucky they didn't) then they should be punished.

 

Would it make more sense if the idea was "Well, if you do something stupid but nobody gets hurt that's fine, but if you hurt someone then you get in trouble"? Then everyone would do stupid acts as they knew they would only get in trouble if they killed/hurt someone. And okay, maybe this time it wouldn't have killed someone, but what if next time they got drunk they decided to throw the burning tv off a roof? Or left the apartment with the tv still burning, causing a fire and killing people?

So maybe 2 years was a bit much of a sentence, but I'm glad they got caught. It's never fair for someone to be killed or injured for another person's stupidity.

 

Exactly.;)

but what if next time they got drunk they decided to throw the burning tv off a roof?

 

Ms Martin said Hart and Gyi had been drinking in the pub during the afternoon before returning home where they then decided to throw the television off the top of the block of flats.

 

Apparently they did throw most of it off the roof first.

 

Probably imagined they were The Who or something.:dozey:

That's what I get for skimming the article. :awesome:

 

Okay, so let's change that to: "What if next time they threw a burning tv off the roof into a crowded street?"

That's what I get for skimming the article. :awesome:

 

Okay, so let's change that to: "What if next time they threw a burning tv off the roof into a crowded street?"

 

Well any behaviour like that is moronic, whatever way you look at it.:dozey:

 

That includes people who cause an accident because they're using their mobile phone or some other gadget while driving, too.

With the privilege of being allowed to drive a car on the road comes responsibility.

My argument wasn't about whether or not they deserve to be punished, and I understand the logic that just because there were no deaths it doesn't mean what they did can be forgotten about, because if that's how it worked people would simply be allowed to make the same mistakes over and over until something actually does go wrong, my argument was over the severity of the punishment and how unfortunate they are that this story was picked up by the media and now they are 'the example'. I didn't say anywhere they didn't deserve to be punished, so I don't really understand why we're discussing whether what they did deserves some form of punishment.

 

I did make a note that what they did is harmless, maybe that's where things got confused, is that a relevant point? Yes of course. We stop drunk drivers because they are at risk of killing other people on the roads, we don't just go "Well he hasn't killed anyone yet so what's the harm?"- but surely the punishment for drunk driving is a hell of a lot less then the punishment for drunk driving and killing someone?

 

That's why it's relevant. They did something wrong but fortunately it didn't result in death, so certainly they need to be made aware of what they've done by some form of punishment, but I don't even think this deserves jail time, something more like community service and alcoholics anonymous (If they actually plan on continuing to get drunk and be responsible) but they seem to acknowledge severity of their actions, and we forget that prison is not just a punishment, its supposed to help people. Do these educated guys really need to be reformed? Will prison change them at all?

 

I originally just thought the sentence was wrong, but Mark writing how they need to be the 'example' just made me feel sick. At least we agree that the sentence is harsh.

Sentenced to 2 years, so out in less than 9 months.

 

Either that or they appeal against the judgement and get a 2 year "suspended" sentence.

Sentenced to 2 years, so out in less than 9 months.

 

Either that or they appeal against the judgement and get a 2 year "suspended" sentence.

 

Finally someone answers my question!

Sentenced to 2 years, so out in less than 9 months.

 

Either that or they appeal against the judgement and get a 2 year "suspended" sentence.

 

Maybe so, but on the basis that more lives were put at risk by their reckless actions than the "fire extinguisher" student's, would that be fair?

Was he punished more severely because the incident was captured on film?

 

Either way, both cases were highlighted in the media because such extreme moronic behaviour is fortunately still very rare. Hopefully the severity of these sentences will make sure it stays that way, although I won't be holding my breath................. :dozey:

It will be a very sad day for society if such incidents become so common-place they are no longer considered newsworthy.