Joseph Haythorne: Jail for man who published ‘burn down hotel' social media post during Rotherham riot

Joseph Haythorne has been sent to begin a 15-month prison sentence after he posted ‘Go on Rotherham’ and urged people to ‘burn’ hotels containing asylum seekers as a riot was beginning to unfold at the Holiday Inn Express in Manvers, Rotherham, last summer.

The disorder on August 4, 2024, formed part of more than a dozen protests held across the country, many of which turned violent.

The protests were fuelled by misinformation and followed a shocking knife attack in Southport, Merseyside, in which three young girls were killed.

Haythorne is the first person to be jailed for the offence of publishing material which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring-up racial hatred in connection with the Rotherham riot, after he admitted the offence at an earlier hearing.

In a Sheffield Crown Court judgement passed down by the Recorder of Sheffield, Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, on Friday (July 11, 2025), he said of Haythorne’s conduct: “It has to be stated that what he suggested in his online post – seen by 1,100 people in the 17 minutes it was published – eventuated about an hour and a half after the post.

“There was a fire adjacent to the hotel and other fires ignited around and about – including at an electricity generator, on grassed banking near houses, and in the road.

“The incident at Manvers in Rotherham was exceptionally serious.”

Judge Richardson said Haythorne, formerly of Staines Road West, Ashford, had also included a link to a far right activist within the offending post. Judge Richardson said he had made the decision not to name the activist in question in his judgement, however.

“Racism and racially motivated violence suffused the events at Rotherham from first to last. It also infected this defendant who was filled with racialist hatred at least for a time,” Judge Richardson said in his judgement explaining his reasons for reaching the sentence imposed, which was passed down nine days after Haythorne’s initial sentencing hearing on July 2, 2025.

He continued: “The incident was part of wider national civil unrest fostered by a form of malignancy in society spread by malevolent users of social media.

“This is the role the defendant took. It is right to observe that he read ignorant and inaccurate reports online and was unable to see them as that.

“He spread the venomous message. That message – and it was a message directed at the occupants of the hotel in Rotherham – was an encouragement to set fire to the hotel in which they were housed by the authorities.

“The message was acted upon by others. What the defendant suggested and encouraged – eventuated. That is why this post by the defendant was a serious criminal act warranting condign punishment.

“He was not the only online post encouraging this. He made a contribution to what occurred.

“The disorder that eventuated was racist and extremely frightening for anyone who was there.

“It was perpetrated by an ignorant and extremely violent mob.”

Referring to reports prepared on Haythorne’s behalf, Judge Richardson said his pre-sentence report makes clear ‘the defendant was – and remains – very remorseful for his actions’.

Sign up to our new court newsletter, where we seek to ensure that justice is not just done but seen to be done. Register today and receive our rundown of the key stories from the courts over the past seven days.

He described his conduct as a ‘moment of madness’ and how he was in a rage when he posted the message.

“The probation officer makes the valid point the conduct of the defendant contributed to the harm caused at Rotherham,” said Judge Richardson.

Considering mitigating factors, Judge Richardson also referred to a psychiatric report from Dr Shenoy, which concludes Haythorne, aged 26, had ‘a depressive illness at the time of the offending and this has endured for a long time’.

Dr Shenoy’s report states: “[The defendant’s] depressive symptoms are treatment resistant, and he has continued to suffer with these symptoms despite being compliant with treatment as prescribed.

“One of his symptoms is irritability and this can be exacerbated by negative life events.

“In my view he became increasingly distressed by news about the arrest of the Liverpool attacker and then got overtly emotional by thinking about his nieces and nephew is entirely plausible from a psychiatric perspective.

“His depressive symptoms would have meant that he viewed these events in a more negative light than others and the irritability/anger/distress he felt would have no doubt have been exacerbated by his depressive symptoms.

“I am therefore of the opinion that his depressive symptoms have a direct impact on his behaviour at the time.

“However, the fact that he realised the folly of his ways and deleted the tweet within a few minutes is reflective of him being aware of his actions at the time.”

Judge Richardson said he had also considered what he dubbed as the ‘prosecution mistake’ when passing sentence, namely the fact that ‘the consent of HM Attorney General was not sought before the institution of the prosecution as required by statute’.

Describing what happened next, Judge Richardson explained: “The case proceeded without anyone spotting that error. The defendant pleaded guilty, he was committed for sentence, the case was opened, and mitigation advanced.

“Fortunately, I took the view I needed time for reflection as the case was unusual. I adjourned for a short while. It was during this time the prosecution realised the error. The case was immediately restored, and I declared all that had occurred in the Crown Court to be a nullity.

“The case was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court where the defendant was permitted to vacate his plea, and those proceedings were dismissed due to the absence of the consent of the Attorney General.

“In the meanwhile the consent of the Attorney General was sought. It was given. The proceedings started afresh. This was all achieved within a week.

“The defendant pleaded guilty in the newly instituted regular proceedings and he was again committed for sentence. The case was re-heard – this time correctly – and I passed sentence on July 2, 2025.”

Judge Richardson said that after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, he had come to the conclusion that only an immediate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances.

Explained Judge Richardson: “I fully accept there is personal mitigation and there is the mental health issue. I also accept that rehabilitation is feasible in the community.

“There are a number of important factors that favour a suspended sentence. I have them well in mind, but my judgment is, the circumstances and facts of this case are so serious that only an immediate sentence of imprisonment can be justified.

“The facts of this case are very serious. To encourage people to burn down a hotel housing those seeking refuge and post a link to a far right activist in the circumstances I have described is a matter which demands a condign response and warrants not just a custodial sentence, but it must be served immediately.

“I have sought to bring the sentence to a fair level reflective of the appropriate mitigation and culpability of the defendant.”