Ten youths were jailed for life for the murder of Jack Woodley last October.

Sentences were passed in August following a three-month trial at Newcastle Crown Court earlier in the year.

Judge Rodney Jameson QC imposed minimum terms on each of the teenagers.

Nine of the defendants are now appealing against their conviction.

Read more: Mum of boy convicted of murdering Aycliffe teenager insists 'he's not a killer'

The Northern Echo has spoken to 'Emma', the mother of 'Billy', one the boys jailed for taking part in the attack, who argues her son is not a murderer.

Here is what Judge Jameson said when he passed sentence on the boy.

"You are 17. You have one previous conviction for dwelling house burglary, committed in February of last year. The offence itself is of limited relevance to sentence in this case, but you were made the subject of a Referral Order and were, therefore, subject to that order when you were involved in Jack’s murder.

"You gave evidence during the trial. I conclude that you are of at least average maturity for your age.

"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.

"I note that the pre-sentence report describes you as “showing a level of maturity and understanding that exceeds his chronological age”. I agree with that assessment.

"You were present when Jack first came to the notice of your group at the Feast.

"You then went to collect the knife.

"I cannot accept your explanation during trial of the damning CCTV evidence.

"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 the attack you left the scene. You did nothing to help Jack.

"After anxious consideration, I cannot be sure that you intended that Jack should be killed, despite having gone to fetch the knife.

"This is a very limited mitigation in your case.

"You planned that Jack should be attacked and were one of those who went to fetch the knife.

"It follows that you knew and intended that Jack would be seriously injured and that the knife would be used in the attack.

"The risk that he would be killed must have been obvious to an intelligent and mature seventeen-year-old, but I accept that  that is not the same as intention.

 

The Northern Echo: The fearsome knife that was used in Jack's murder The fearsome knife that was used in Jack's murder (Image: Contributor)

"After the attack, you were the first person telephoned by the boy with the knife.

"You already knew that Jack had been stabbed, but he confirmed it.

"You did not answer questions in interview.

"This was your legal right. But you knew that Jack was fighting for his life in hospital and you knew who had stabbed him.

"You chose not to help. This, and the nature of your evidence at trial makes it clear that your expressions of regret were motivated by self- interest. You have shown no trace of genuine remorse.

"The starting point for assessing the minimum term in your case, as in the case of all defendants is 12 years.

"I have already indicated that features of the murder that apply to all defendants means that that figure must be increased to 14 years before considering specific aggravating and mitigating features.

Specific Aggravating Features:

  • You went to collect the knife. This is evidence that your use of violence was significantly premeditated and that you intended that the knife would be available to cause really serious injury. In so doing, you helped to create the obvious risk that Jack would be killed.
  • You were subject to Referral Order at the time of the murder.

Specific Mitigating Features:

  • That you were only just 17 at the time.
  • You have no previous convictions for violence.
  • There is a suggestion that you were influenced by another when previously convicted.
  • You did not intend to kill.
  • You have done well while on bail and in custody and are focussed on the future.

"The sentence upon you is one of detention, pursuant to S.259 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

"In your case, your conduct in bringing the knife to the scene is a particularly serious aggravating feature and outweighs the mitigating features that I have identified.

"The minimum term that you must serve before the Parole Board can consider whether it is safe to release you will be 15 years.

"From this will be deducted the 169 days that you have been remanded in custody and a further 60 days, being half of the period of 119 days that you spent on a qualifying curfew while awaiting trial. This results in a Minimum Term of 14 years and 136 days starting today.

"This means that you will be 31 before the question of whether it is safe to release you can be considered.

"It does not mean that you will be released then. That will depend upon your behaviour and progress while in custody. You will not be released unless and until it is safe to do so.

"If you are released, you will remain on licence for the rest of your life.

"If you were to re-offend, or to breach the terms of your licence you could be re-called to custody under the terms of this sentence and might not be released again."

  • Names have been changed, and removed from the judge's comments, to protect the identities of the youths convicted of Jack's murder in line with a court order imposed at the start of the trial in March.

Read next:

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.