Gang spared jail after vicious attack on boy

9:49am Wednesday 16th May 2012 in Your Town

FIVE teenagers attacked a 16-year-old boy as he walked home from a party, leaving him with severe facial injuries.

Bolton Crown Court heard how the victim was punched and kicked by a gang following what he described as “petty rivalry” between schoolchildren, but the boys yesterday avoided a jail sentence.

Alexander Langhorn, prosecuting, told the court that the 19-year-old Dylan Smith had published on Facebook: “(The victim) must die”.

Then, by chance Smith, of Berne Avenue, Horwich, together with Aaron Brierley, also 19, of Lester Avenue, Horwich, and three younger boys came across the 16-year-old victim on the night of April 11 last year.

The young victim was walking home from a party in Old Vicarage Road, Horwich when Smith asked him his name and suddenly attacked him.

“At that point, without any warning, he punched the boy in the face,” said Mr Langhorn.

The boy fell to the floor and when he got up again he was punched in the face again by Brierley.

The boy attempted to get away by running through gardens, but was caught by the gang and pushed through a fence before being punched and kicked by all the youths. The young thugs then walked their victim towards Chorley New Road and tried to persuade him not to tell the police.

He needed two operations to repair a fractured eye socket, suffered a broken wrist and his face was badly swollen and bruised.

In a statement to the court the boy, who missed sitting a GCSE exam due to his medical treatment, said: “I did everything I could that night to avoid confrontation.”

Smith, Brierley, a 16-year-old boy and two 17-year-old boys, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, all pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The court heard that all the defendants came from “respectable families” and some did charity work. Sentencing all, apart from Brierley, Recorder Simon Medland QC described it as an “unusual and difficult case”.

Smith was sentenced to 50 weeks in a young offenders’ institute, suspended for 18 months and given an 8pm to 6am curfew for four months.

He was also ordered to pay his victim £750 compensation.

The three younger defendants were given youth rehabilitation orders and a 12-hour curfew for 90 days.

They will each also have to pay the victim £500 compensation.

Brierley will be sentenced on May 24 once pre-sentence reports are compiled.

Comments (24)

11:02am Wed 16 May 12

JOHN HIGHAM says...

Is the halfwit that was sat on the bench just hoping and preying for more vigilantes to start taking the law into their own hands ???????
Is the halfwit that was sat on the bench just hoping and preying for more vigilantes to start taking the law into their own hands ??????? JOHN HIGHAM

10:16pm Wed 16 May 12

Lancashire always says...

I think he may have been outside at lunch enjoying a joint !!!!!!
I think he may have been outside at lunch enjoying a joint !!!!!! Lancashire always

10:25pm Wed 16 May 12

Lancashire always says...

Clearly if you come from a `good home` you are different but then doesn't savage Neanderthal behaviour now mean you have made a good home bad ?
Clearly if you come from a `good home` you are different but then doesn't savage Neanderthal behaviour now mean you have made a good home bad ? Lancashire always

9:40am Thu 17 May 12

MarkP27 says...

Have the prisons closed in this country? What do you have to do to be sent to prison. A young boy walking home is set upon by a group of thugs, they commit GBH upon him, pursue him through the streets, assault him again and then march him along Chorley New Road all the while threatening him with retribution, should he contact the police. The boy also had to undergo surgical correction for his extensive injuries and missed vital examinations at school. All of this is offset against a bit of charity work and being from 'good homes'??? How on earth can a Judge agree that these individuals are from 'good homes' after posting vile comments on social media and committing these acts of violence. The public of Bolton should be worried about living in this town, where a boy walking home, causing no trouble at all and doing 'everything possible to avoid confrontation' is set upon by a group of animals. Clearly the evidence was overwhelming as they all had to plead Guilty - yet they are allowed to remain in the community. The individuals concerned and their parents should be embarrassed at this ridiculous sentence.
Have the prisons closed in this country? What do you have to do to be sent to prison. A young boy walking home is set upon by a group of thugs, they commit GBH upon him, pursue him through the streets, assault him again and then march him along Chorley New Road all the while threatening him with retribution, should he contact the police. The boy also had to undergo surgical correction for his extensive injuries and missed vital examinations at school. All of this is offset against a bit of charity work and being from 'good homes'??? How on earth can a Judge agree that these individuals are from 'good homes' after posting vile comments on social media and committing these acts of violence. The public of Bolton should be worried about living in this town, where a boy walking home, causing no trouble at all and doing 'everything possible to avoid confrontation' is set upon by a group of animals. Clearly the evidence was overwhelming as they all had to plead Guilty - yet they are allowed to remain in the community. The individuals concerned and their parents should be embarrassed at this ridiculous sentence. MarkP27

11:08am Thu 17 May 12

Reed Lover says...

People from "good homes" do not beat other people half to death as part of the icing on the cake of a good night out. "Good homes" provide proper parenting including teaching respect for other people and the law. The families of these thugs should be ashamed of themselves but will no doubt believe that their little angels are somehow victims themselves.
Good homes...pfffft!!
People from "good homes" do not beat other people half to death as part of the icing on the cake of a good night out. "Good homes" provide proper parenting including teaching respect for other people and the law. The families of these thugs should be ashamed of themselves but will no doubt believe that their little angels are somehow victims themselves. Good homes...pfffft!! Reed Lover

3:56pm Thu 17 May 12

TafHorwich says...

Yes it was a vicious attack, but to castigate and blame the families when you don't know them is wrong. The families did not tell the youths in question to do this, and are appalled by what has happened no doubt. To blame the parents, grandparent's and other decent family members for the actions of the individual in question is both ignorant and stupid. I can not, and never will condone this kind of violence, but it is for their actions that they must be judged, and not their families. So stop blaming the families and blame the individuals instead, like intelligent, normal people should. And stop "assuming" that you obviously know them because of the actions of 1 person.
Yes it was a vicious attack, but to castigate and blame the families when you don't know them is wrong. The families did not tell the youths in question to do this, and are appalled by what has happened no doubt. To blame the parents, grandparent's and other decent family members for the actions of the individual in question is both ignorant and stupid. I can not, and never will condone this kind of violence, but it is for their actions that they must be judged, and not their families. So stop blaming the families and blame the individuals instead, like intelligent, normal people should. And stop "assuming" that you obviously know them because of the actions of 1 person. TafHorwich

10:48pm Thu 17 May 12

Reed Lover says...

Were the families truly appalled for the victim or rather appalled at the thought of their precious lovely boys doing time.
The latter I reckon.
Were the families truly appalled for the victim or rather appalled at the thought of their precious lovely boys doing time. The latter I reckon. Reed Lover

8:01am Fri 18 May 12

TafHorwich says...

I had a friend that died of a drug overdose a few years back, by your reasoning Mr Reed Lover I should therefore blame the family of my friend for his addiction to narcotics, and assume that all the family are also drug users. An i am family
I had a friend that died of a drug overdose a few years back, by your reasoning Mr Reed Lover I should therefore blame the family of my friend for his addiction to narcotics, and assume that all the family are also drug users. An i am family TafHorwich

8:06am Fri 18 May 12

TafHorwich says...

That was supposed to say "and maybe I am family"
That was supposed to say "and maybe I am family" TafHorwich

1:38pm Fri 18 May 12

MarkP27 says...

TafHorwich, you appear terribly confused. Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person - in that sense the 'victim' is also the perpetrator of the offence. In this case, the victim was viciously assaulted by a group of youths. It is for that reason alone that the actions of the parents are being called into question. I do not accept the 'good homes' defence for an instant. My venom in responding to this article is to the Judge and the decision made not to imprison all of the youths involved, remembering that all pleaded guilty to very serious charges, the maximum sentence for which (as an adult) carries life imprisonment. This was not a 'one off' act of violence, but a sustained and brutal event, leaving a young boy with permanent mental and physical damage. The actions of the Judge sends out the message that if your parents provide for you, you can commit a serious and unprovoked assault, without any form of retribution or realistic punishment. The victim missed GCSE examinations, which may have had a detrimental effect upon his education and career.
TafHorwich, you appear terribly confused. Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person - in that sense the 'victim' is also the perpetrator of the offence. In this case, the victim was viciously assaulted by a group of youths. It is for that reason alone that the actions of the parents are being called into question. I do not accept the 'good homes' defence for an instant. My venom in responding to this article is to the Judge and the decision made not to imprison all of the youths involved, remembering that all pleaded guilty to very serious charges, the maximum sentence for which (as an adult) carries life imprisonment. This was not a 'one off' act of violence, but a sustained and brutal event, leaving a young boy with permanent mental and physical damage. The actions of the Judge sends out the message that if your parents provide for you, you can commit a serious and unprovoked assault, without any form of retribution or realistic punishment. The victim missed GCSE examinations, which may have had a detrimental effect upon his education and career. MarkP27

3:41pm Fri 18 May 12

peace and love 123 says...

Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.
Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book. peace and love 123

3:47pm Fri 18 May 12

peace and love 123 says...

And as for the judge he is more educated than most people here commenting, even he has to answer therefore he has to look at similar cases and guidelines before passing a sentence and this is the paper it can get facts wrong aswell only human. Unused brains just knows how to criticise.
And as for the judge he is more educated than most people here commenting, even he has to answer therefore he has to look at similar cases and guidelines before passing a sentence and this is the paper it can get facts wrong aswell only human. Unused brains just knows how to criticise. peace and love 123

4:01pm Fri 18 May 12

pablo151 says...

There was a similar case about fifteen years ago in the Turton/Bromley Cross area. If I remember rightly all the gang received custodial sentences. What has changed?
There was a similar case about fifteen years ago in the Turton/Bromley Cross area. If I remember rightly all the gang received custodial sentences. What has changed? pablo151

5:04pm Fri 18 May 12

Mikeh333 says...

What has changed? The prisons are full of people who steal donuts and a pair of trainers in the riots, thus serving sentences up to 5 years, a result of interference from politicians.
What has changed? The prisons are full of people who steal donuts and a pair of trainers in the riots, thus serving sentences up to 5 years, a result of interference from politicians. Mikeh333

5:08pm Fri 18 May 12

peace and love 123 says...

pablo151 wrote:
There was a similar case about fifteen years ago in the Turton/Bromley Cross area. If I remember rightly all the gang received custodial sentences. What has changed?
Have you heard the phrase every case is different and yes there has even been similar cases fifteen years ago.
[quote][p][bold]pablo151[/bold] wrote: There was a similar case about fifteen years ago in the Turton/Bromley Cross area. If I remember rightly all the gang received custodial sentences. What has changed?[/p][/quote]Have you heard the phrase every case is different and yes there has even been similar cases fifteen years ago. peace and love 123

5:14pm Fri 18 May 12

peace and love 123 says...

Mikeh333 wrote:
What has changed? The prisons are full of people who steal donuts and a pair of trainers in the riots, thus serving sentences up to 5 years, a result of interference from politicians.
You are right they are full and its costing tax payers money, money that could go towards education, nhs and list goes on.
[quote][p][bold]Mikeh333[/bold] wrote: What has changed? The prisons are full of people who steal donuts and a pair of trainers in the riots, thus serving sentences up to 5 years, a result of interference from politicians.[/p][/quote]You are right they are full and its costing tax payers money, money that could go towards education, nhs and list goes on. peace and love 123

5:58pm Fri 18 May 12

Bolton5 says...

Facts - A violent attack by vicious thugs with no sense of right from wrong, an innocent victim suffering life-changing injuries, a guilty plea.
Result - Inappropriate sentences from a Judge who is offering no justice for law abiding people.


Also A & E and hospital wards treat thousands of people every year who have been assaulted. Until the thugs are stopped we all pay the price.
Facts - A violent attack by vicious thugs with no sense of right from wrong, an innocent victim suffering life-changing injuries, a guilty plea. Result - Inappropriate sentences from a Judge who is offering no justice for law abiding people. Also A & E and hospital wards treat thousands of people every year who have been assaulted. Until the thugs are stopped we all pay the price. Bolton5

10:48pm Fri 18 May 12

Lancashire always says...

I am pretty sure if my teenage son had after such a fearful beating FINALLY arrived home with his escorts reminiscent of NAZI officers on the doorstep not only with the horrific injuries which will take years of facial surgery to get over ( do you know you have to peel the face to get to eye socket damage and staple the skin back together ? his parents do ) plus the endless wait to see if your boys face looks `normal` after all the treatment which by the way Bolton and Blackburn excel at you then have this final insult of toe tapping tag wearers saying poor me if only he had kept his gob shut Justice a travesty more like.
I am pretty sure if my teenage son had after such a fearful beating FINALLY arrived home with his escorts reminiscent of NAZI officers on the doorstep not only with the horrific injuries which will take years of facial surgery to get over ( do you know you have to peel the face to get to eye socket damage and staple the skin back together ? his parents do ) plus the endless wait to see if your boys face looks `normal` after all the treatment which by the way Bolton and Blackburn excel at you then have this final insult of toe tapping tag wearers saying poor me if only he had kept his gob shut Justice a travesty more like. Lancashire always

6:22am Sat 19 May 12

ownerdriver says...

peace and love 123 wrote:
Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.
First time offenders, more like first time caught.
[quote][p][bold]peace and love 123[/bold] wrote: Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.[/p][/quote]First time offenders, more like first time caught. ownerdriver

3:20am Sun 20 May 12

TafHorwich says...

MarkP27 Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person. So is any crime, it is not the mother, or fathers fault what the child does, violence is inherent everywhere. I understand everything, and i condone society as a whole. However, who are we to judge when a Judge has laid out the sentence he sees fit, and he knows more than us. I feel for the victim, no-one deserves what happened to him. And i mean that sincerley
MarkP27 Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person. So is any crime, it is not the mother, or fathers fault what the child does, violence is inherent everywhere. I understand everything, and i condone society as a whole. However, who are we to judge when a Judge has laid out the sentence he sees fit, and he knows more than us. I feel for the victim, no-one deserves what happened to him. And i mean that sincerley TafHorwich

9:54am Sun 20 May 12

hoboh2o says...

peace and love 123 wrote:
Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.
Or then again we could simply have shot them! No chance of re-offending
[quote][p][bold]peace and love 123[/bold] wrote: Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.[/p][/quote]Or then again we could simply have shot them! No chance of re-offending hoboh2o

1:55pm Mon 21 May 12

Rawenergy says...

peace and love 123 wrote:
Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.
How you can say the judge made the right decison is beyond me. Go and tell the victim that!! These scumbags will just go out and do it again, with the possibility of the next victim not being so lucky. There chances of reoffending will be higher regardless. What a stupid post.
[quote][p][bold]peace and love 123[/bold] wrote: Judge made the right decision in my opinion don't get me wrong these lot have done a terrible crime, they are first time offenders so if you send them to prison once you will only make them more bitter and chances of offending be only higher and also it costs 40k per year for individual. Everybody should be given one chance before throwing the book.[/p][/quote]How you can say the judge made the right decison is beyond me. Go and tell the victim that!! These scumbags will just go out and do it again, with the possibility of the next victim not being so lucky. There chances of reoffending will be higher regardless. What a stupid post. Rawenergy

2:15pm Tue 22 May 12

Little Lever Kerry says...

TafHorwich wrote:
MarkP27 Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person. So is any crime, it is not the mother, or fathers fault what the child does, violence is inherent everywhere. I understand everything, and i condone society as a whole. However, who are we to judge when a Judge has laid out the sentence he sees fit, and he knows more than us. I feel for the victim, no-one deserves what happened to him. And i mean that sincerley
You sound like you've had a few scraps. Bet you are a junkie as well. Are you still involved with crime?
[quote][p][bold]TafHorwich[/bold] wrote: MarkP27 Drug addiction is a personal matter and one that is inflicted upon one's own person. So is any crime, it is not the mother, or fathers fault what the child does, violence is inherent everywhere. I understand everything, and i condone society as a whole. However, who are we to judge when a Judge has laid out the sentence he sees fit, and he knows more than us. I feel for the victim, no-one deserves what happened to him. And i mean that sincerley[/p][/quote]You sound like you've had a few scraps. Bet you are a junkie as well. Are you still involved with crime? Little Lever Kerry

3:54pm Tue 22 May 12

MarkP27 says...

TafHorwich, your comments do not make sense. How can you say that 'any crime' is one which is inflicted upon one's self??? Granted I am only aware of the salient facts in this case, but I am pretty sure that the victim did not inflict anything upon himself!! Also, why do you condone society as a whole? - the perpetrators were caught and brought before the Courts for Justice. You clearly do not understand the inner workings of the Judicial system. A Judge is promoted or advanced upwards, providing there are no or very few Appeals against his Sentencing. I have spent many years in the Courts representing clients charged with identical offences. VERY rarely does a Prosecutor Appeal a sentence, but Defence lawyers regularly undertake appeals against convictions or sentences. I accept that you 'feel' for the victim, but you do not comprehend the public outrage and the overall concern that this precedent sets. Genuinely it makes me wonder why the victim bothered to make a complaint in the first instance.
TafHorwich, your comments do not make sense. How can you say that 'any crime' is one which is inflicted upon one's self??? Granted I am only aware of the salient facts in this case, but I am pretty sure that the victim did not inflict anything upon himself!! Also, why do you condone society as a whole? - the perpetrators were caught and brought before the Courts for Justice. You clearly do not understand the inner workings of the Judicial system. A Judge is promoted or advanced upwards, providing there are no or very few Appeals against his Sentencing. I have spent many years in the Courts representing clients charged with identical offences. VERY rarely does a Prosecutor Appeal a sentence, but Defence lawyers regularly undertake appeals against convictions or sentences. I accept that you 'feel' for the victim, but you do not comprehend the public outrage and the overall concern that this precedent sets. Genuinely it makes me wonder why the victim bothered to make a complaint in the first instance. MarkP27

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree