Newbury News Ltd. Print-Digital-Social

Newbury man convicted of assaulting police officers in Reading

'Thames Valley Police takes a zero tolerance policy towards offenders who assault officers'

John Herring

John Herring

john.herring@newburynews.co.uk

Contact:

01635 886633

police

A Newbury man has been convicted of assaulting police officers.

Peter Crame, aged 39, was seen urinating in public outside McDonald's on Oxford Road, Reading, around 11.55pm on Saturday, July 25.

He was confronted by a staff member who he assaulted but did not injure. 

Crame then assaulted three police officers as they tried to arrest him, kicking one in the knee and spitting in their face.

The other two officers were kicked multiple times in the face and head and they sustained bruising and swelling.

Crame, of Gibb Terrace, pleaded guilty on Monday, July 27, to three counts of assault by beating of an emergency worker and one count each of assault by beating, being drunk and disorderly in a public place, obstruct/resist a constable in execution of duty and outraging public decency at Reading Magistrates’ Court.

He has been remanded to appear for sentencing at Reading Crown Court on a date yet to be set.

Investigating officer, Pc Jake Newton, based at Reading Police Station said: “Thames Valley Police takes a zero tolerance policy towards offenders who assault officers.

“We are pleased that due to the strength of the evidence presented Crame has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity enabling the victims, both members of the public and officers alike, closure.”

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on Newbury Weekly News

Characters left: 1000

Article comments

  • __Andy__

    04/08/2020 - 22:22

    Gibbs Terrace is in Finchampstead. So not a 'Newbury man' - I'm confused....

    Reply

  • louise

    04/08/2020 - 16:28

    Hope they throw the book at this low life. Marching down High Streets in paramilitary uniforms, however is a protected pass time it seems!

    Reply

    • __Andy__

      04/08/2020 - 22:23

      Where's the bit about paramilitary uniforms?

      Reply