A homeless woman ran over a librarian with her mobility scooter after being told she was banned from the library.
Purdi Thorp-Arch had been told by staff she was no longer welcome at Brighton’s Jubilee Library the previous day after repeatedly filming them in a row over her friend being banned.
In the morning, librarian Julie O’Neil stood in front of the scooter to stop her coming in and tried to hand her a letter formally banning her.
But Thorp-Arch drove the scooter at speed into the library, forcing Ms O’Neil to jump out of the way and running over her foot.
During a trial at Brighton Magistrates Court last month, Thorp-Arch, 57, claimed Ms O’Neil had touched her scooter, causing her to lose control of it.
But after watching the CCTV several times, magistrates found it was clear Ms O’Neil only touched the scooter once it was being driven into her in self-defence.
Ms O’Neil told the court she was waiting at the entrance for Thorp-Arch, whose name she didn’t then know but who was referred to by staff as Mobility Man because of the scooter.
She said: “I said you can’t come in, you are banned, and held out the banning letter.
“He just looked at me, and the mobility scooter was stationary at that point. Then I could see from the expression on his face that he decided I don’t care, I’m going in and then he drove the scooter straight at me.
“I was rather taken aback. I thought he might stop before he got to me but he got to me and he clearly wasn’t going to stop.
“He caught the side of my foot and leg and I had to jump sideways to avoid being driven down
“Then he carried past me going at speed into the library.
“This was the culmination of quite a few days worth of problems with this individual. I asked colleagues to call the police and then I went into the library to try and give them the letter.
“I went past the table with the puzzles where he usually sat. He clearly wasn’t going to take the letter but there was a basket in the front of the scooter so I put the letter in there.”
Defending, Andy Horsman asked Ms O’Neil if she had touched the scooter during the incident in March last year, causing Thorp-Arch to lose control of it, and she said no.
Following this brief cross-examination, Mr Horsman conferred with his client and then told the court Thorp-Arch was now representing herself.
Taking the stand, wearing a short grey pleated skirt, white shirt, green cardigan, white knee socks and hair in space buns, Thorp-Arch said she had been going to the Jubilee Library for several months and enjoyed doing the puzzles there.
But she had become angry when her friend Ashley Middleton had “got into an altercation” outside the library and had been banned, which left her “appalled”.
She said: “I have got videos of staff refusing to give any reason for banning Ashley.
“[The day before the scooter incident] another member of staff asked to leave the library and to stop filming. They were rude and disgusting, calling me Mr this and Mr that and they called the police.”
She also suggested the CCTV of the incident shown in court had been edited to take out Ms O’Neil touching the scooter.
She added: “Children can run around doing whatever they like and they encourage that, but homeless people put a word out of place and they’re banned.
“They keep harrassing my friend Ashley whenever he came into the library. It was a campaign of hate against me, I believe.
“I thought they had no authority to ban me because I have just read the law.”
After retiring to consider the evidence, chair of the bench Alison Musker said: “We found the CCTV is an accurate record. The victim did not touch your scooter until she feared you were about to hit her.
“The victim gave very clear and credible evidence. We believe she saw on your face that you were going to hit her. You were clear today that you would not be stopped and that you believed the library had no right to ban you.”
Asked if she would like to say anything in mitigation before sentencing, Thorp-Arch said: “It’s pointless.”
Ms Musker fined Thorp-Arch £180 and ordered her to pay costs of £150 and a surcharge of £72, bringing her court bill to £402.
Asked if she would prefer to pay in full or have it deducted from her benefits, Thorp-Arch replied: “I’m not going to claim benefits after today.”
Sounds like library staff are being transphobic tbh
No. Violent bully should be jailed. In a male jail.
Filming staff doing their job and using a mobility scooter as a weapon, careering around the library in it when asked to leave, risking knocking over other customers is not an acceptable way for anyone to behave.
Agreed. Gender identification has nothing to do with someone acting thugish.
Was it a man or a woman?
Yeah, it sounds like they were. It also sounds like the offender was a bad customer and committed several crimes including driving her mobility scooter into somebody, causing injury. Trans people can still be criminals and bad people, and transphobia isn’t an excuse to assault someone. However it does strike me that even in this article the librarian can’t give a reason she was banned
Just to clarify, Ms O’Neil began to give the context about why she had been banned, but was stopped as that would have required the prosecution to apply for, and be granted, a bad character application. Without that, nothing which casts shade on a defendant’s character can be admitted as evidence.
Thorp-Arch gave her account of why she had been banned when she gave her evidence.
I would also say that it was my impression that Ms O’Neil sincerely believed Thorp-Arch was a man.
Not at all, this person isn’t trans, more of a cross dresser, dresses as a schoolgirl , bit of an oddball, gives trans people a bad name
Of course Thorpe Arch will be claiming Benefits, no would say they are claiming benefits anymore-that’s a threat to try to get out of paying £402 in Fines-pay £50-£100 every 2 weeks or monthly.
They will relay on Benefits unless going out to get a Job. ( doubt that)
NOT OUR CRIMES
Sell the mobility scooter to pay the fine & costs. Wonder how they charged it up if they are truly homeless?
The victim knows a man when she sees one.
It’s such a nice library with a tranquil atmosphere and staff that I’ve always found very pleasant and helpful. It’s such a shame they have to deal with this type of ‘person’ and incident where the defendant clearly has mental issues and the courts have no powers to deal with – a paltry fine that he will get out of paying – as he said ‘pointless’
Which where what is was the library located
Oh Purdi Thorp-Arch… you’ve excellded this time…. never too late to learn
Jubilee Street, Brighton, BN1 1GE
Headline is wrong. It’s a man
Throw the book at her.
The person in question has done this stuff before (hitting people with their mobility scooter, deliberately knocking over displays etc)
They will then blame the victims – sighting trans issues or homeless issues or disability issues, anything they can get away with.
They are looking for attention.
They have been banned from a number of establishments for altercations with staff and customers.
I was wondering if this was the case. I’ve often found that there tends to be a pattern with this kind of behaviour. Weaponising transgenderism is quite disagreeable as well; it ends up stereotyping people through bigotry. A few of the comments whenever a transgender individual is discussed, like the other day, is just one example.
It’s a library at the end of the day, not a homeless centre, they sometimes have a security guard, that’s a sign of the times we now live in.
It needs livening up in there if you ask me most of the people who go in there are semi conscious it gets more like God’s waiting room Everytime I go in which is as infrequently as possible