by Mick the Ram

Two boys who were found guilty of the murder of a 19-year-old man from Anguilla and given life sentences, have had their hearing to determine the minimum length of detention they must serve before being considered for parole.

They were just 12-years-old when they set about Shawn Seesahai in an unprovoked attack in a park in Wolverhampton, West Midlands, attacking him with a machete with such ferocity that in one blow to his back, the 16-inch (42.5cm) weapon almost passed right through his body; he also suffered a fractured skull.

The judge had guidelines that allowed her to impose a maximum of 13 years on the boys detention, but in a controversial decision, she chose to adjust the sentence to specify a more lenient term of eight and a half years, meaning the boys, who are both now 13-years-old, could be released shortly after leaving their teens.    

Back in 1993, two 10-year-old’s were convicted of the grievous murder of an innocent two-year old, but this crime makes the pair the youngest ever knife murderers.

Typically neither child – who the judge decided could not be named – would accept the blame for who actually was responsible for the machete strikes, but were each told they would remain on license for the rest of their lives. 

The victim’s devastated family had to use all their life savings to repatriate his body back to Anguilla and had to take out a loan to attend the trial earlier this year, so with no financial assistance forthcoming from the authorities, they were forced to watch the sentencing hearing via a video link.

His father accepted that the police had done a good job, but was highly critical of the British justice system, feeling that a minimum of fifteen years would have been a more realistic decision.

It sent the wrong message to other UK children, was the response of his heartbroken mother, who felt it demonstrated that even the most horrendous of crimes are not seen to be worthy of anything more than a lamentable sentence being passed.

Exciting future after surgery

Shawn Seesahai had travelled to the UK for some follow-up treatment on his eyes, having initially visited the US for surgery on a detached retina, which he had injured playing basketball on his home island of Anguilla.

His hope was to stay on and study engineering in Birmingham, where he had settled during his six months in the country.

Unprovoked attack

On 13 November, Mr Seesahai went with some friends to Wolverhampton around 20 miles away, while the two defendants were together on the same afternoon, meeting two girls of a similar age.

He and one of those friends were on a bench at the city’s Stowlawn playing fields when they encountered the two boys. At the trial it was described how one of the 12-year-old’s deliberately shoulder-brushed Mr Seesahai who questioned why, before all of a sudden the machete was produced.

Didn’t stand a chance

Mr Seesahai told his friend to run but stumbled himself and as his companion looked back he saw the victim being struck repeatedly by the vicious weapon to his back, legs and skull, as well as being kicked and beaten.

His injuries were catastrophic, the most significant being where the machete had gone through his body all the way from his back, through his ribs and into his heart. Although CPR was administered to him, he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Murder weapon at boys home

At the trial, the court heard the boys had screenshots of knives – similar to the one used to kill Mr Seesahai – on their phones and had searched online for news articles about the attack.

One had actually posed in a mask with the murder weapon for a picture hours before the killing, and was found to have 11 areas of blood-staining on his clothing; but more incriminating was the actual discovery of the machete under the bed of one of the boys.

Unimaginable suffering at previous case

When found guilty the killers became the youngest defendants convicted of murder in Britain since Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both ten at the time, were found guilty in 1993 of killing two-year-old James Bulger.

That little boy was snatched from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, whilst out with his mother and led to a railway line, where he was subjected to unimaginable torture with bricks and iron bars, before being left for dead.

Judge chooses to protect identities

Young criminals’ identities are usually protected under the Youth Justice and Criminal Act, 1999, unless a judge rules they should be named. In this case Mrs Justice Tipples rejected an application from media organisations to name them, saying that the public interest in knowing their identities was outweighed by the need to rehabilitate the killers and their vulnerability.

On top of that special arrangements were made in court for the boys to be allowed to sit alongside a family member and no wigs and gowns were worn.

Lenient sentence explained

Although legally required to order the boys to be detained at His Majesty’s Pleasure – which is the legal equivalent of a life sentence for a juvenile – Mrs Justice Tipples explained her reasoning for what appeared to be a lenient instruction regarding the minimum length of stay.

She stressed that in theory, if the boys are considered a risk to the public they may never come out of prison. However, she said she had to consider their ages and how immature they were and she also pointed out that the term to serve would be reduced by the 315 days that they had already been detained.

Family broken

Mr Seesahai’s family are left with the haunting thoughts of how terrified their son must have been in his final moments. In a victim impact statement read to the judge by Dorothea Hodge, the UK representative for the government of Anguilla, it was clear that they have suffered massively, both mentally and financially as a result of their son’s murder.

They called the killing tragic, unexpected and senseless and said as a family they were struggling in so many ways. “Losing a child is a parent’s worst nightmare and to put it all down in a statement on how it has impacted our lives would take more than a day to read. It has left a huge hole in the pit of our stomach which nothing can fill.”

They also wanted to make everyone aware of how “incredibly close” Shawn was to his 15-year-old sister Shana, with whom they said he had an “unbreakable bond” and who they could not imagine will be able to come to terms with his death.

They said it had affected her so much, to the point where it’s taken a toll on her mental health and affected her academic performance. None of the family have been able to have an unbroken nights sleep and what keeps coming into their thoughts is that their precious child has been taken from them for what appears to be no reason at all.

The sentence does seem incredibly light, and for some people there are too many seemingly irrelevant factors which appear to have been used as mitigation, with a lot of generous spirit being shown towards the boys who committed the horrendous act; so an appeal may still be lodged.