Ten teenagers have been jailed for 124 years between them for the murder of Newton Aycliffe teen, Jack Woodley.
The defendants were handed lengthy sentences at Newcastle Crown Court on Friday afternoon.
It follows on from his fatal stabbing on October 16, last year, when he was attacked at Houghton Feast in Houghton-le-Spring.
Read more: Jack Woodley murder: Mum's heartbreak as Aycliffe teen's killers jailed
We have pulled together a round-up of what was said as each of the defendants was sentenced.
Judge Rodney Jameson QC said:
On the evening of Saturday 16th October last year, Jack Woodley went to the final night of the Houghton Feast with his girlfriend and other friends. He was 18 years old and standing at the threshold of his adult life.
On Monday he was due to start a new job. When he left the Feast, he was on his way to pick up keys for his new flat. He had much to look forward to and must have been full of hopes for the future.
None of those hopes will now be fulfilled. Instead, he was pursued from the Feast and attacked. During the attack he was stabbed twice.
The second stab wound penetrated his chest cavity from behind and caused uncontrollable and ultimately fatal bleeding. He did not die immediately. He was able to get away from the attack into a nearby alley.
Read more: Man dies after crash involving motorbike and 4x4 near junction
He was pursued into the alley and further punched, kicked and stamped on before most of those who had attacked him ran away.
You A, ran away immediately after inflicting the stab wounds. Jack was tended to, in the alley, by the emergency services and taken to hospital, but all efforts to save him were in vain and he died the following evening.
Each of you has been convicted by the jury of Jack’s murder. You were all under the age of 18 at the time. You will all have been told that this means that I must impose a sentence of detention for life under S.259 of the Sentencing Act 2020 on each of you. In very old-fashioned language this is called Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.
The Court must, however, decide how long each of you must serve in custody before the Parole Board can consider whether it is safe to release you. This is called the Minimum Term.
Irreversible loss
On Monday, the Court heard from Jack’s parents. The loss, permanent and irreversible, of a much loved son, brother and partner has effects that are hard for others to imagine. Words can only express so much of the hurt and harm it has caused. It is obvious that the trial has been an ordeal for the family.
No sentences can restore Jack to his family and loved ones, or reduce the pain that they will endure now and in the future. It may seem unfair that you may be able to live at liberty while still young men when Jack cannot because of what you did.
I hope that Jack’s family will understand that sentencing in cases such as this is not a measure of the worth of Jack’s life. That is beyond calculation. No sentences could compensate for it. So sentences must be a balance between the seriousness of the offence and the youth, individual circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation of individual defendants.
Defendant A who delivered the fatal blow
Defendant A You were living in London with your parents. You became involved in gang culture characterised by the possession of knives.
Your father is from the North East. The family decided to return to this area. They wanted to get you away from gang culture in London. That was an entirely understandable decision.
They have written a sincere and moving letter to the Court, for which I am grateful. They love and cherish you just as Jack’s parents love and cherish him, if only now in memory.
However, by the time that the family arrived in Houghton, you had acquired another knife which was to become the murder weapon.
If you want to read more great stories, why not subscribe to your Northern Echo for as little as £1.25 a week. Click here
It is a dreadful object, with a blade many inches long, extremely sharp, with a cutting edge at the bottom and another on top, ending in a serrated area.
It is difficult to see what legitimate purpose such a weapon could have in any circumstances. It could have none in the hands of a 15 year old schoolboy in Houghton. You brought the knife to Houghton and hid it in your bedroom.
Referring to the attack, he said.
What was happening was clear to witnesses who were with Jack. The group, of whom you were all now a part, were looking for an excuse to use violence on Jack. He was told that if he was a “Townie”, then he was in trouble.
Jack was confronted almost immediately after he had left the Feast, outside a dentist’s surgery.
Jack was punched, kicked and stamped on. You A , brought out the knife from where you had hidden it in your trousers and stabbed Jack to the area of his right hip. This caused a relatively minor wound. You were not satisfied with that.
As the attack on Jack continued, you can be seen circling around the group who were attacking him, with the knife in your hand, before running in and stabbing him again, this time in the back and fatally. I am satisfied you intended to do this and knew what you had done. You ran off, having achieved your purpose.
Sentence A minimum of 17 years. He will be 32 before parole is considered.
Defendant B
B, you are 16, having turned 16 just 12 days before the murder of Jack Woodley. You are of average maturity for your age.
You were one of the group who left the Feast and followed Jack and his friends. You asked if anyone wanted a one on one fight with Jack. Jack refused.
You remained in the group which followed him to the area by the electricity boxes where you were the first to attack him.
After punching Jack from behind, you held him in a head lock while your friends attacked him.
In that time, he was punched, kicked and stamped on. It is not clear whether you were still holding Jack at the time of the first or second stabbing.
You followed Jack when he fled into the alley, and you were involved in attacking him again. You tried to kick him when he was on the ground and being kicked by others.
I do not conclude that you intended that Jack should be killed.
Sentence A minimum of 13 years and six months. He will be 29 before parole can be considered.
Defendant C
You are 17. You had your seventeenth birthday some 13 days before the murder of Jack Woodley.
You are an intelligent young man and showed a sophisticated understanding of what evidence to accept, what to deny and what to seek to explain.
Like all other defendants who gave evidence you avoided giving any evidence against others in the dock.
You were present when Jack first came to the notice of your group at the Feast. You then went, with others to collect A's knife.
Whether or not you had intended to become involved in violence at any earlier stage, from about 8.45pm at the latest you were actively preparing to attack Jack as part of a group and went to fetch a potentially lethal weapon with which to do so.
You punched Jack as he was being held and followed him into the alley after he had been stabbed, where you both punched and kicked him.
After anxious consideration, I cannot be sure that you intended that Jack should be killed, despite having gone to fetch the knife.
Sentence Minimum of 15 years. He will be 31 before being considered for parole.
Defendant D
You were 17 when you were involved in the murder of Jack Woodley. You are now 18.
You are not, in my judgment, particularly bright, nor an obvious leader. I do not say this to be rude or unkind to you: it may help you, at least a bit.
You have a caution for possessing a bladed article, but this was when you were 11 years old. You took a pen-knife to school. I do not regard that as significant.
You all returned to the Feast with the knife. However, I cannot be sure that you intended to kill.
You were involved in the attack upon Jack both at the electricity boxes and in the alley.
It is clear from the evidence of witness A that you were armed with a knuckle-duster.
You left the scene alone and went home, where you began the process of concocting a false alibi which continued when you were interviewed by the police until they showed you the video footage that proved that you were present.
As with all other defendants, you did nothing to help Jack.
Sentence Minimum of 15 years. He will be 32 before the question of whether it is safe to release you can be considered.
Defendant E
You are now 15. At the time of the murder of Jack Woodley you were only 3 months past your fourteenth birthday. You are the youngest of the ten defendants.
You said that others persuaded you to come to the Feast in order to be involved in violence, saying that you were a girl if you did not.
If that is true, those others bear a heavy responsibility for involving you. I make it clear that I have not used what you said in the case of any other defendant.
It is evidence that you knew that your friends might become involved in fighting, even if you were reluctant to join them, but I sentence on the basis that you did not go to the Feast wanting to do so.
Sentence A minimum of 8 years. He will be before the Parole Board can consider release.
Defendant F
You are now 15, but were 14, a couple of months short of your fifteenth birthday, when Jack was murdered.
I assess you as being an intelligent boy of average maturity for your age. You were, however, only 14. The pre-sentence report also refers to emotional difficulties and to potentially relevant aspects of your upbringing.
Before you went, and despite your age, you drank vodka and smoked cannabis. You said this had a limited effect upon you.
You played a significant role in confronting him outside the dentist’s surgery.
You were seen to shout “Get the chopper out: Get the chopper sorted”. It follows that you knew, before the attack began, that A had the knife.
I conclude that you must have been shown the knife (which you accurately described as a chopper.
Sentence: Minimum of 13 years. He will be 27 before the question of whether it is safe to release him will be considered.
Defendant G
You are now 15 you too were only 14 when you were involved in the murder of Jack Woodley.
You have a full scale IQ of 70, which is indicative of a learning disability.
When you were interviewed by the police you told them that you had seen the attack on Jack, but did not recognise anyone who was involved. In fact, they were your friends.
The CCTV and video clips show you in the group as Jack is followed from the Feast into the Broadway and towards the Britannia. As Jack is attacked ... you approach with your hood up. It is not easy to see exactly what you then did and no witness named you.
You said that you had fought one of Jack’s friends. If that is true, you did it to stop him trying to help Jack.
Sentence: Minimum of 11 years. He will be 26 parole is considered.
Defendant H
You are 16. You were 15 when Jack was murdered. You did not give evidence during the trial, nor give an account to the police. There is no suggestion in the pre-sentence report that you are either more nor less mature than your age.
Because there is no evidence of the circumstances in which you came to join in the attack, and none of your whereabouts before you are seen on sentence on the basis that you became involved at a late stage.
I am sure that you became involved no later than the time at which the agreement to conceal identity in order to commence the attack on Jack was formed and that you, together with all others, knew that A was being encouraged to use a knife. I accept that this means that any element of premeditation would be very brief. There is no evidence that you went to the Feast intending to fight.
Sentence: Minimum of 11 years. He will be 26 before the question of whether it is safe to release him can be considered.
Defendant I
You are 16. You were 15 at the time of the murder. You have written a letter to the Court. You say that there is much that is good in you and that you are determined to do well in future. I hope that that that comes true.
There is no suggestion in the pre-sentence report that your intellectual or developmental age is either greater of less than your chronological age. There is some indication that your emotional maturity may be somewhat less. You gave evidence and I would agree with that assessment.
You said that you were unaware of any trouble with Jack, but you were part of the group which followed him can be seen on the CCTV footage of that group.
I am satisfied that you were aware that Jack was to be attacked but I cannot be sure that you knew that A had a knife until immediately before you became involved in the attack.
You accepted in a prepared statement that you had grappled with Jack and “thrown him over”. You said you did not realise that it was the victim of the attack that you had taken hold of and that you were trying to stop the attack.
Sentence: Minimum of 11 years. He will be 26 or 27 before the question of whether it is safe to release him can be considered.
Defendant J
You are 18. You were 17 at the time that Jack was murdered. The Court has a Psychological report on you, prepared before the trial which indicates that you have a full scale IQ of 79, which is immediately below the bottom end of the normal range. You are described as quiet and lacking in self-confidence. You have a recent diagnosis of ADHD.
You were one of those who followed Jack out of the Feast. I am satisfied that you knew that Jack was to be attacked when you did that, but I cannot be sure that you knew that A had a knife until immediately before you joined the attack.
…Your face is almost entirely concealed and you are the most heavily disguised of any defendant. You join in the attack and deliver a kick, albeit at a time when Jack was still standing. You did not follow Jack into the alley.
Sentence: Minimum of 11 years. He will be 28 before parole is considered.
Read next:
Jack Woodley murder: Nine teens lodge appeals against conviction
Jack Woodley murder: Mum's heartbreak as Aycliffe teen's killers jailed
Jack Woodley murder: Ten teens are JAILED for minimum of 124 years
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel