The father of rapper Wretch 32 was Tasered as police arrested his younger son over illicit mobile phone contact with an alleged drug dealer on remand in jail, a court heard.
Omar Scott, 23, had been detained during a raid in Tottenham, north London in April last year.
His famous musician brother, whose real name is Jermaine Scott, shared a video on Twitter of the incident, showing their 62-year-old father Millard Scott falling downstairs after officers fired a Taser.
Millard Scott was not arrested but a 52-year-old woman was held for obstructing police.
Detectives later charged Omar Scott, of Bromley Road, Tottenham with encouraging another to commit an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. He also faced a second charge of causing a transmission from prison.
He was convicted today of being in “regular” contact with David Sika while the latter was remanded in custody at HMP Bristol accused of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply in 2019.
Scott was granted unconditional bail ahead of his sentencing at Thames Magistrates’ Court on May 18.
He called or sent messages to Sika’s illicit mobile phone on around 66 occasions, while receiving 71 back between December 10 2019 and January 10 2020.
On Tuesday, Stratford Magistrates’ Court heard that Scott made similar “patterns” of contact with Sika during the period.
After Sika’s mobile phone was found in his cell on April 22 last year, police officers carried out a search on Scott’s home address in Tottenham.
Pc Nicholas Stylianou, who appeared in court as a witness, said the raid occurred as contact had been made with Sika, who had alleged links to drug dealing in the area.
He told the court: “People involved in these activities tend to communicate with each other regardless of who’s locked up.”
Matthew Groves, prosecuting, said: “Sika and Scott were known to each other, and the defendant knew full well that he was on remand in custody while the contact took place.”
Mr Groves told the court that among the messages sent included words such as “yo” and “bro” and the defendant also asked Sika to ring him.
He added: “These were illegal communications between Mr Scott and Mr Sika, who had been using a phone he knew he shouldn’t have had.”
He went on to say: “We don’t know the precise nature of communications as to what was said in every text, message or phone call that was sent.”
Mr Groves said any message sent by Sika using the illicit phone could be deemed “suspicious”.
However, Tim James-Matthews, defending, said that there was not a “thread of evidence” to suggest any criminal wrongdoing.
He told the court that Scott was not in the “top three” of message recipients, adding that Sika’s brother had been in contact 312 times.
Mr James-Matthews said: “The phone was primarily used to contact his brother, a conversation which took place every day.
“There are other reasons why Mr Sika possessed the phone, which does not establish that the defendant’s involvement was a criminal act.”
He added: “There is not a thread of evidence to suggest the communication between Mr Scott and Mr Sika had a criminal purpose.
“If there was, I have no doubt he’d be facing more serious charges.”
The court also heard that Scott’s last communication with Sika was on January 10 2020, but the phone was confiscated 12 days later.
Mr James-Matthews said: “When the defendant stops texting him (Sika) he continues to communicate with his main correspondent, his brother.”
He added: “Mr Scott is under no obligation to say you can’t have the phone, the fact he didn’t is no criminal act.”
Mr James-Matthews said that on many occasions, Sika made the first contact.
He said: “Mr Sika had his own reason for being in contact with Mr Scott, on some occasions there wasn’t even a reply from the defendant.”
But District Judge Ross Johnson, delivering his verdict, said: “I find that by answering calls, making calls and by sending and receiving text messages between his own phone and the phone in prison, Mr Scott’s actions were capable of encouraging the ongoing possession of the phone.
“By being one of the contacts who actively engaged in communication with the phone, I am sure that Mr Scott’s actions were capable of encouraging Mr Sika to continue to possess and use the phone in prison to carry on that contact with the outside world.
“It matters not whether Mr Sika would have continued to possess the phone regardless of Mr Scott’s actions.”
He continued: “By admission, the defendant has engaged in communication over a period of time with a phone he knew was in the possession of a remand prisoner.”