AROUND nine months after brutally stabbing a vulnerable man to death, two Dorset teenagers have been jailed for at least 18 years for murder.

Jack James Hindley, of Christchurch, and Samuel Roy Jones, of Bournemouth, attacked Edward Reeve with two knives in his Walkford home.

They inflicted multiple wounds, which led to 35-year-old Mr Reeve bleeding to death on his own on New Year’s Eve 2021.

The boys, now both aged 17, left the address and bragged to a group of girls they met up with nearby about what they had done.

Hindley and Jones both denied murder but were found guilty following a trial at Winchester Crown Court in July.

The Honourable Mr Justice Sweeney sentenced the youths at the same court on Wednesday, September 28.

Bournemouth Echo:

The judge made his sentencing remarks available to the press in full after they were delivered in open court. They can be read below.

On 27 July 2022, at the conclusion of their trial, Jack Hindley and Samuel Jones were both convicted, on overwhelming evidence, of the brutal murder, in the evening of 31 December 2021, of a 35-year-old vulnerable man called Edward Reeve, in his own home in Heath Road in Walkford. Between them, Jack and Sam used two knives to inflict multiple wounds on Edward Reeve, from which, after they had left the scene, and after he had suffered greatly (both physically and mentally) he bled to death (Count 1).

The prosecution case included that Jack (Count 2) and Sam (Count 3) had each taken a knife to Edward Reeve’s home, and that each was thus guilty of having a knife in Ringwood Road, Walkford on 31 December 2021.

Prior to the trial, Jack pleaded guilty to Count 2 upon the basis that he had not taken a knife to Edward Reeve’s home, but rather had taken a knife with him when he left. That was not accepted by the prosecution and was a live factual issue during the trial, albeit that guilt of the offence was not in dispute. Sam pleaded not guilty to Count 3, and was convicted.

…

Having presided over the trial, during which both Jack and Sam gave evidence, I am sure of the following facts, which are consistent with the jury’s verdicts:

  1. As I have already indicated, Edward Reeve was aged 35 and was vulnerable. He lived alone in a small house in Heath Road in Walkford, which had a small back garden.
  2. His vulnerability arose from a combination of factors – in particular he had long been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, for which he was prescribed medication and received support from the Community Mental Health Team. However, in the last two years or so of his life, his mental health issues had deepened, and he also had issues with drink and drugs, with looking after himself properly, with the state of his home, and with being taken advantage of by young males.
  3. Jack first encountered Edward Reeve in the late evening of 29 December 2021 when he and other young males went to Edward Reeve’s house, drank, and took drugs – in particular, inhaling nitrous oxide.
  4. Jack showed his contempt for Edward Reeve by brazenly stealing Edward Reeve’s’ valuable computer tower when he left the house that night.
  5. Starting later that night, there was mobile telephone contact between Edward Reeve and Jack, which included conversation about the supply of drugs to Edward Reeve, with Jack eventually telling him to “**** off calling me” in the early hours of 31 December 2021. However, Edward Reeve continued to call Jack over the course of that day.
  6. In the early evening, Jack and Sam were together in Christchurch in the company of three 15-year-old girls, when Edward Reeve called Jack again - asking for weed or coke.
  7. In the result, Jack and Sam initiated a visit to the address of Edward Reeve, describing him as being “a weirdo” and “a paedo”^.
  8. The five travelled by train from Christchurch to Hinton Admiral, and then walked to Edward Reeve’s house.
  9. Whoever was carrying them, Jack and Sam each had with them a substantial knife, intending (in each case) to have it available to use as a weapon, as part of the ‘fun’ of bullying Edward Reeve which they were intent upon.
  10. All five eventually entered the house, where Jack and Sam both smoked cannabis.
  11. Jack again treated Edward Reeve (who was passive throughout) with contempt – berating him for having one or more holes in his socks, and punching a hole in the wall of the music room. Sam joined in by also punching a hole in the music room wall.
  12. The three girls were uncomfortable in the house, and first two, and then the third, left – leaving Jack and Sam alone in the house with Edward Reeve, who had been engaged in a telephone call with his mother.
  13. Edward Reeve did nothing to justify what happened to him during the following 8 or so minutes that Jack and Sam were alone with him in the house.
  14. They jointly and brutally attacked him in the living room with their respective knives, with Jack (as he admits) striking the first blow In so doing they intended to cause at least grievous bodily harm.
  15. Edward Reeve made desperate attempts to get away from the attack upon him, including trying to, and eventually succeeding in, getting out into the garden.
  16. However, in the end, he suffered eight stab wounds, four incised wounds and five superficial point scratches or punctures. The principal wound was a deep stab wound to the abdomen which severed the left renal vein which bled heavily, and which caused his bowel to protrude. There was also a terrible wound to the face, which caused one of his eyes to partially collapse, and defence injuries to both hands, with one of his thumbs nearly being severed. A number of the other wounds had been inflicted from behind.
  17. Nevertheless, Edward Reeve was still alive when Jack and Sam left. They did nothing at all to help him – albeit that summoning help would not have saved him. They took the knives, and other items that they thought might incriminate them, with them.
  18. Thereafter, Edward Reeve was able to get back into the house, and to move around it for a time in and in anguish, until (no more than an hour after the attack) catastrophic bleeding from the combination of all the wounds resulted in his collapse and death.
  19. In the meanwhile, Jack and Sam (who had each put the hood on his top up in the hope of avoiding identification via CCTV and were fist bumping, laughing, and hugging) had soon caught up with the three girls and were excitedly bragging to them about what they had done. During the course of that, Jack received a phone call (which was recorded at source) from a friend who was in prison. Both he and Sam spoke with the caller, and were again excited and bragging about what they had done.
  20. At Hinton Admiral station, on the way back to Christchurch, and deliberately outside the range of the CCTV at the station, Sam burned a glove that he had been wearing, and he and Jack posed for a team photograph of the two of them. They then returned to Christchurch.
  21. Subsequently, the two knives were disposed of – though I cannot say by whom.
  22. At 6.04 am on 1 January 2022 Sam tried to call Edward Reeve.
  23. In the evening of 3 January 2022, Jack went to Edward Reeve’s house, but took no action thereafter.
  24. Edward Reeve’s body was eventually found in the evening of 4 January 2022. and his blood was later found on items recovered from Jack and Sam’s homes, and on and in the JD sports bag that Sam was caught on CCTV carrying during the evening of the murder.
  25. When arrested on 7 January 2022 Sam tried to prompt his father into providing a false alibi.

Read our full coverage on the outcome of the trial

Edward Reeve was, it is clear, much loved, with much to live for, despite his problems. As their Victim Impact statements make graphically clear, the impact of his murder on his father, mother, aunt and friends has, inevitably, been immense and will be long lasting. The Court expresses its sincere condolences to all of them.

The sentence for murder by a 16 year old is fixed by law, namely Detention at His Majesty’s pleasure.

The critical question that I must decide in relation to the defendants is the identification of the minimum term that each must serve before he is able to make any application for his release, the outcome of which will be for the Parole Board to decide.

Against the background of the facts that I have found, I must first identify the appropriate starting point in the calculation of the minimum term.

Given that each defendant took a knife to the scene, intending to have it available to use as a weapon, the combination of paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 and section 127 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 means that the starting point in each case is one of 17 years (as opposed to 23 years if he had been 17 at the time, or 25 years if he had been 18 at that time, or 10 years if paragraph 4 did not apply).

I reject the contention, advanced initially on behalf of Jack, that section 127 is inconsistent with the Definitive Guideline in relation to Sentencing Children and Young People, or the Guidance in cases such as Peters, Palmer, Campbell [2005] 2 Cr App R 101. Prior to section 127 coming into force the appropriate starting point would have been 12 years but the taking of the knife with the intent to which I have referred would have been a very substantial aggravating factor - typically resulting in a significant increase from the starting point. In primary legislation, Parliament has now identified what, as a starting point, the minimum term should be – not what the ultimate minimum term should be. That remains to be worked out by appropriate reference to Schedule 21 and other relevant matters.

The authorities, see e.g. Markham, also make clear that Schedule 21 (as now amended by section 127) provides a free-standing basis upon which to impose an indefinite term on those under 18, and that (albeit that age is a very important factor) Section 1 of the Guideline (which was relied upon by both defendants in argument) is of no application. Indeed, there is a footnote in Section 1 itself to that same effect.

In the case of both Jack and Sam, there are a number of additional aggravating factors in relation to the murder, as follows:

  1. It was carried out in the home of Edward Reeve.
  2. He was particularly vulnerable because of disability.
  3. Mental and physical suffering was inflicted on Edward Reeve before his death which must have been excruciating.

In Sam’s case the murder is further aggravated by his two previous conviction, by the fact that he was on bail for a number of offences at the time, by the destruction of the glove, and by the attempt to get his father to support a false alibi.

In both their cases, as is accepted on behalf of Sam, there is very little that can be said that could serve to diminish the dreadful circumstances in which Edward Reeve met his death. The statutory mitigating factors in relation to the murder are that:

  1. There was no premeditation to kill – although that is tempered by the fact that the defendants carried knives which they intended to use as weapons, thus creating a risk of death.
  2. At the scene, there was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than to kill – although that is also tempered by the fact that, because they used substantial knives the risk of death was high.
  3. Their age at the time, although that is already reflected to a considerable extent, in the starting point for the minimum term.

In Jack’s case, the murder is further mitigated by his previous good character – albeit that that is tempered by his admitted theft of Edward Reeve’s computer tower, his accepted involvement in the supply of cannabis around the material time, and by the nature of the murder.

I have also taken into account the content of his PSR (to which I have referred, in part, above) and his letter.

Jack’s belated expression of remorse is an encouraging start, but provides only modest mitigation. Likewise the encouraging start to his educational activities.

In Sam’s case, and in addition to his PSR, there (is as indicated above) a Modern-Day Slavery and Human Trafficking report, a psychological report, a psychiatric report. I have summarised aspects of them above, together with Sam’s letter and the letter from his father.

As with Jack, Sam’s belated expression of remorse is an encouraging start, but provides only modest mitigation. Likewise the encouraging start to his educational activities.

I take into account the matters relied on in the other reports – although the Criminal Exploitation finding is undermined by the admission that it was the product of lies.

In any event, I have no doubt whatsoever that Sam (who knew very well that it was wrong to do so) freely chose to take a knife with him to Edward Reeve’s address, and freely chose to take part in the murder, such that his background (although still relevant) played little part in the offence.

Jack and Sam were, in my view, both of average maturity for their years. Standing back and looking at their cases in the round, and against the background that Jack initiated the attack but that there are more aggravating factors in Sam’s case, I have concluded that it is appropriate to pass the same sentence on each.

In the result, the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors results in an increase in the minimum term from 17 years to 18 years.

Given that the offences in Counts 2 and 3 have been taken into account in calculating the minimum term, it is not in the interest of justice to impose separate sentences in relation to them.

Stand up please.

On Count 1 I sentence you both to Detention at His Majesty’s pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years, less the 262 days that you have each spent on remand.

There will be no separate penalty on Counts 2 and 3.

^During the trial it was heard the defendants branded Mr Reeve as a "paedo" - there has never been any suggestion that he ever showed such an interest in under age girls.

If you are interested in court and crime news, stay up to date with all our latest updates in our dedicated Facebook group. To find out more and to join click here.