The disgruntled former employee says that he “thought it would be funny” despite initial fears the hoax was motivated by antisemitism
The disgruntled former employee says that he “thought it would be funny” despite initial fears the hoax was motivated by antisemitism
A cider-fuelled chef developed a simmering grudge after he was fired from a hotel before returning to his former workplace and claiming that he had a bomb. A disgruntled Nicholas Manny attended the Leonardo Hotel on Liverpool city centre’s waterfront carrying a backpack and with a wire protruding from his chest before making the alarming threat to his ex-colleagues.
Despite initial fears that the hoax may have been motivated by antisemitism, he now claims that he “thought it would be funny”. A judge today told him that his “puerile joke” had been made “in very poor taste”, but ultimately freed him from prison.
Liverpool Crown Court heard this afternoon, Thursday, heard that an intoxicated Manny attended the hotel on Keel Wharf on the morning of October 7 last year, being observed by members of staff “behaving in an unusual manner”. The 23-year-old, of Lisburn Road in Aigburth, “lingered” within the premises before exiting and sitting down in the road outside.
Ken Grant, prosecuting, described how two employees then approached Manny as a result of concerns over his welfare, but he responded by repeatedly telling them: “Stay away. Please stay away. I’m a bomb threat.”
Manny was noted to be carrying a backpack and had a wire protruding from his clothing, leaving staff with “immediate and genuine concerns”. While this later transpired to be a cable connected to a portable mobile phone charger, Mr Baxter said: “They feared that he might have been in possession of an explosive device and, as a result, staff withdrew from the immediate vicinity of Mr Manny.
“The emergency services were contacted, and the police attended. There was no bomb or explosive device. However, Mr Manny’s behaviour created a situation in which members of staff believed that there was a real and immediate threat to them and their safety.”
Manny, who the ECHO understands was employed as a chef at the hotel, was said to have left the area by the time officers arrived at the scene and was subsequently arrested the following day. Under interview, he told detectives that he had “consumed a significant quantity of strong cider” and “couldn’t remember what happened”.
However, Manny “apologised to those who he had frightened and upset” and “denied holding any extremist political views”. He went on to submit in a basis of plea, which was accepted by the prosecution, that “none of his actions were politically motivated” and he “did not have any knowledge that the hotel was owned by a member of the Jewish community”.
This document added that Manny “thought it would be funny to say he had a bomb” due to his employment being terminated the previous year. He has one previous conviction for drink driving from 2024.
Tara Riley, defending, told the court: “What is clear is that Mr Manny is very remorseful for his behaviour on that day. The gentleman he is before the court today is nowhere near the gentleman that he was on day he committed these offences.
“He was heavily intoxicated, and it was at a time when he was struggling with the misuse of alcohol. Had his head been more clear, he would not have acted in that way. But he understands that his actions on that day caused considerable distress and concern in relation to the comments he made. He wishes to apologise, through me, to the court.
“Mr Manny explains that, during the course of his employment, he found some situations very stressful. That led him to turn more and more to alcohol, which, of course, essentially changed the person that he was. He says, since his remand into custody, the best thing for him is that he has been able steer clear of alcohol.
“He has secured employment in the kitchens of HMP Liverpool. He tells me that he has been doing well there. Mr Manny has now been in custody for some seven months. He has, essentially, got his head down while in custody and used his time as best as he can to better himself in the future.”
Manny admitted communicating false information with intent on the day that he was due to stand trial. Appearing via video link to HMP Liverpool, he was handed a 27-month imprisonment suspended for two-and-a-half years with an alcohol treatment requirement and drug testing requirement, a three-month trail monitoring requirement and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days.
Sentencing, Judge Anil Murray said: “You are 23 and effectively of good character, though you do have a conviction for drink driving in 2024. It is clear that you have got a problem with alcohol.
“You had been employed there in the past, and it is clear that you were dismissed from that employment and you held a grudge. You did not think you had been dismissed fairly, although it seems to me almost certain that you were fairly dismissed.
“Staff saw that you were acting oddly. You made reference to Palestine. You left but sat down in the roadway. When a member of staff approached you, you said they should stay away because you were a bomb threat.
“The duty manager saw a wire coming out of your chest. At one stage, it was worried that you might have a device with you. You had a backpack. Both witnesses took your threat at face value and felt threatened. The hotel was not evacuated, but the people who heard what you said were understandably frightened.
“You say that this was not borne out of any political belief, and say you did not know who owned the hotel. The prosecution do not say that this was motivated in any way by antisemitism.
“You say you thought it would be funny because your employment had been terminated. That was puerile behaviour, borne out of a grudge that you held. It is clear that you did not have the capacity or intent to create an explosion, but your victims did not know that. This was very worrying for them.
“You bore a grudge and wanted to do something in relation to a perceived injustice. Cases like this are always serious, because they bring about feelings of terror. This was impetuous behaviour while in drink.
“You had no intention of going through with this. It was intended as a drunken joke, albeit one in very poor taste. You had alcohol problems at the time. You accept that you have caused distress. Your family are supporting you. You have been working in the prison kitchen, and you are willing to work with the Probation Service.
“You have spent some time in prison. That is a really significant aspect of mitigation in this case. Had it not been for that, I would have had to pass an immediate sentence of imprisonment today. I am satisfied, in this case, that the best way of protecting the public in the future is that you undergo intensive supervision. That will be an onerous order.”
