Sentence

The Recorder: Tony Stuart Hawkes, Jordan Towers and Dean Curtis, you may remain seated until I tell you to stand.

All three of you were convicted by the jury of the murder of Kevin Johnson, and of the wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Jamie Thompson. You, Hawkes, admitted at the start of the trial an offence of unlawful wounding of Mr Thompson, but the jury rejected the claim that your guilt was as limited as you had said and you were convicted of the full offence. The cases on both counts were presented by the prosecution on the basis of joint enterprise, in other words that each of you was part of a common purpose or plan, so far as count 1 was concerned, of at least intending to inflict really serious harm on Mr Johnson and, so far as count 2 was concerned, to wound Mr Thompson with the intention of causing him really serious harm.

As to count 1, it is not possible, despite Mr Hill’s invitation to me to make a finding that it was you Hawkes who inflicted the fatal blow, to decide which one of you, Hawkes or Curtis, actually stabbed Mr Johnson. During the trial you blamed each other. It is, however common ground that you, Towers, did not do the stabbing, although it is perfectly clear that you threw a piece of concrete pavement at Mr Johnson. It seem to me in light of the jury’s verdicts you were all part of a joint enterprise. It is not necessary for the purposes of sentence to come to any conclusion as to whether it was you Hawkes, or you, Curtis, who inflicted the fatal injury on Mr Johnson. So far as count 2 is concerned, it is clear from your admissions, Hawkes, that you were the one who actually inflicted the wound on Mr Thompson. It is clear to me that you, Towers, were to provide the distraction so as to make the attack easier, and your part Curtis was to encourage and egg on Hawkes to do the stabbing.

On the evening of the 18^th of May Kevin Johnson and his fiancée, AB, had spent a pleasant evening together in Grindon. They had got home and after perhaps a silly squabble over a packet of crisps they prepared to go to bed. AB went up to the bedroom first, Kevin followed. It was then you three appeared in the street below. You three were all carrying knives. It is that which is such a disturbing feature of this case, you were each in possession of a knife of some description or other. That, it seems to me, is something which was routinely done by you and indeed by so many others as well. The feeble excuse that is often given is that knives are carried in case of attack and that there is then something which could be used in self defence. But this case illustrates yet again, if any illustration were necessary, the sheer stupidity and the obvious inherent danger of young men carrying knives. It is all to easy, particularly when fuelled up with drink, to use them and all too often the consequences are fatal. The whole country is painfully aware of the frequency with which knives are carried and used, and often as in this case there are terrible consequences for the innocent victims and their families.

The sooner people in general, and boys and young men in particular, realise the risk they are running and stop carrying such weapons the better. There is nothing macho in carrying a knife. Quite the contrary, it is the mark of a coward. The risks of which I speak are almost too obvious to have to be spelled out, but so there can be no doubt those risks of inflicting fatal and serious injuries on others lives are ended and untold devastation and misery is brought down on the victims and their families. The risks for those that carry and then wield the knives are again so obvious, ruination of their own lives followed by long periods in custody.

In this case I have read the very moving impact statements of Mr Johnson senior and of AB, the deceased’s fiancé and mother of his child. I pay tribute to the extremely dignified way they behaved throughout the difficult three-and-a-half weeks throughout the trial. Their grief is palpable, but they also ask wider questions which nobody seems to be able to answer. They look for justice, but the answers the law provides are so imperfect and I acknowledge that. Nothing can bring back their son and fiancé and I understand that nothing this court can do will ever be enough. You three appeared outside Mr Johnson’s house, you were noisy, raucous, belligerent, drunken, making a thorough nuisance of yourselves and carrying knives. Mr Johnson was perfectly entitled to remonstrate with you, which he did, but you would not move on. One or other of you sought to entice him out of his house to fight. Perhaps unwisely he did go outside, he said he was prepared to fight one-to-one but not three onto him. You were not having none of that and all three of you went to engage with him. It would seem that you Hawkes and you Curtis were the closest to him, and it was at those close quarters that one of you stabbed him. You, Towers, threw the piece of concrete at him. Mr Johnson sustained the fatal stab wound to the heart and sustained the other wounds and further injuries, and sadly he was dead very soon.

You then ran off and within a very few minutes you encountered Mr Thompson. You, Towers, sought to distract him by asking for a cigarette, and you, Hawkes, stabbed him in the chest. Fortunately his wound was not as serious as it very well might have been, but nonetheless this was a serious, frightening, motiveless and totally unprovoked attack on an innocent man walking along the street at night.

You all know that the law requires me to pass a mandatory sentence to life custody for the offence of murder. For you, Curtis, the sentence will be custody for life. For you, Hawkes and Towers, the sentence has to be described as your being detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. In each case it is necessary for the court to fix the minimum term you must each serve before the Parole Board may consider whether you man be released back into the community. I make it plain to you and to the wider public that you will not be necessarily be released at the end of the minimum term, that period is the time that you must remain in custody before your release can even be considered.

The decision as to whether you may be released is a decision for the Parole Board. It is also necessary to determine the starting points I must take in accordance with what is laid down by schedule 21 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. The starting point in your case, Curtis, is 15 years, the starting point for you, Hawkes and Towers, is twelve years. As I think you understand, the difference is explained by the fact that Hawkes and Towers were under 18 on the date of the murder.

I have already indicated that in accordance with section 269 of the same Act I intend to pass sentence only on Count 1, fixing the minimum term based on the seriousness of that offence of murder combined with the offence of wounding with intent in Count 2, which I consider because of it’s proximity in time to be associated with the murder. I must now identify the aggravating feature of murder here. It has to be said that there is none within schedule 21, but it would be wholly unrealistic if I did not identify the carrying of knives and the using of knives as an aggravating factor. The inclusion of circumstances relating to Count 1 within the assessment of dangerousness is also a relevant aggravating factor. So far as you are concerned, Curtis, your previous conviction for carrying a bladed article I regard as being of minimal aggravation.

I must also identify any mitigating features. I am satisfied that the intention here was to cause really serious harm rather than to kill. Equally, there is the lack of premeditation. In fixing these terms I have to have regard to your ages, and to the necessity of avoiding too great a disparity in the minimum terms because of the different starting points. When you are so close in age it would be artificial, and indeed unjust, to take a too mathematical approach to the necessary calculation, it seems to me to be more important to do justice to the case in accordance with principle and also to do justice between each of you.

Now you may stand up.

Having regard to the contents of the pre-sentence reports, to what Counsel has said on your behalves, and taking into account your ages and your respective parts in each of those offences, the sentences are as follows:

On Count 1, Curtis, there is custody for life, the minimum term being set at 17 years.

Hawkes, you will be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the minimum term is set at 16 years.

Towers, so far as you are considered you will be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the minimum term is 13 years.

On Count 2 there will be no separate penalty. You may go down.