Drooid Logo
Back to story perspectives

Full Breakdown

Liverpool Protester Sentenced After Anti-Migrant Hotel Incident

8/14/2026, 11:45:25 AM

The June 9 Protest and Arrest

On June 9, a crowd of roughly 150 people gathered outside the Richmond Hotel in Liverpool city centre during an anti-migrant demonstration. Robert Scott, 47, draped himself in a Union Flag and attempted to force entry to a room housing asylum-seeker guests. He later pleaded guilty to stealing a Deliveroo driver’s bag and to criminal damage to the hotel door, offences valued at £240.

Prior Convictions and Legal Context

Judge David Swinnerton noted that Scott’s criminal history includes 44 previous convictions covering 72 offences since 1993, encompassing domestic-violence incidents, assaults, drug-related offences, harassment and theft. The judge also highlighted that Scott is the father of five children he does not look after. Defense solicitor Nick Cockrell argued for a sentence that would permit Scott’s immediate release, pointing to bandages on Scott’s left arm and describing his recent custodial period as “not an easy period.”

Court Proceedings and Sentencing (August 15 Hearing)

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 15 at Liverpool Crown Court. According to the report, Judge Swinnerton is expected to address the protest’s impact on the city’s visitor economy and to impose a suspended custodial term. The announced sentence includes a 12-month prison term suspended for two years, 25 days of rehabilitation activity, 100 hours of unpaid work, a 12-month mental-health treatment requirement, and a 12-month electronic monitoring tag. Community impact statements from local businesses described “fear and anxiety” caused by the mob’s appearance, which the judge said does not promote the visitor economy.

Verbatim Quotes

  • “The image of mobs coming down the street is not one which promotes the visitor economy.” — Judge Swinnerton
  • “I'm sorry for my actions that day. I wish I never got involved.” — The Judge

These statements capture the court’s view of public order concerns and the defendant’s expressed remorse.