MICHAEL LEE EMMETT MURDER: 'If killer was adult - he would have got 25 years' - judge

Here is the powerful statement of Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE with key parts highlighted below:

• Had you been an adult you would have been jailed for 25 years
• Neither victim did anything to provoke the stabbing
• Unbeknown to the two men when in the house you had gone into the kitchen and picked up a knife
• In taking the life of Michael Emmett you have robbed twin boys aged eight of their father
• Lola, his daughter, born when her father was critically ill will never know him
• Such remorse as you have demonstrated has been limited

Sentencing Remarks R v. Connor Doughton

On 1 August 2014 Michael-Lee Emmett and John Williams, with others, were outside the Stonehouse pub in Cefn Fforest chatting and smoking when you came along. You knew John Williams, he is a family friend of some years standing, you also knew Michael Emmett.

You told John Williams and others that you had been scrapping with bouncers in Blackwood. A woman in the group spoke to you and in response you were rude and abusive. John Williams told you not to speak to a woman like that, Michael Emmett told you to calm down.

Your reaction to this was to become aggressive; you squared up to John Williams and threatened to knock him out. Those present were trying to calm you down, Michael Emmett’s efforts to do so resulted in a scuffle. John Williams described you as the aggressor. The scuffle ended.

The two men accompanied you along the road, their aim was to walk you back to your home to your father in order to prevent any more trouble. As the three of you walked along John Williams described you as being up and down; alright one minute and making no sense the next.

READ: Connor Doughton,16, given life sentence for murder of Blackwood man

It was his opinion that you were under the influence of drugs. As the three of you approached your home you ran from the two men and went through the front door into the property. John Williams and Michael Emmett turned around and began walking back to the Stonehouse pub. Within a short time you exited the back door of your house, followed by your father and your brother. You began shouting at John Williams and Michael Emmett, ‘come on you f*****g b******s’.

Your family were trying to calm you down. Unbeknown to the two men in the road when in the house you had gone into the kitchen and picked up a kitchen knife. Once outside you approached Michael Emmett and using the knife stabbed him in the abdomen causing a penetrating injury to his liver.

Michael Emmett began to run away whereupon you chased him up the road. The chase lasted for some 20-25 metres then you turned back. You approached John Williams there was a scuffle during which you stabbed him in the left upper shoulder, right lower back and right upper arm. The stab wound to the lower back damaged his bladder.

You subsequently dropped the knife in a drain in a road to the rear of the road in which you live. Shortly after you were stopped by the police. You gave a false name, denied any knowledge of a knife and the stabbings and when being taken to the police station spat in the face of a police woman.

Having been taken into custody blood samples were taken from you approximately 13 ¼ hours after the incident. Diazepam and metabolites of it were found in your blood, a very low concentration of a cannabis related substance was found, no alcohol was detected.

By reason of the time which had passed prior to the taking of the blood the forensic scientist was unable to comment as to whether you were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. The concentrations of Diazepam and its metabolites were consistent with therapeutic use of the drug but none was prescribed for you.

Following the stabbing Michael Emmett then aged 29 was taken to the University Hospital of Wales. Investigation revealed a three centimetre stab wound in the right lobe of the liver. In the intensive care unit of the hospital aggressive organ support was given but the damage to the liver was severe.

The decision was made that a liver transplantation was necessary and The University Hospital of Wales arranged the transfer of Michael Emmett to the liver intensive therapy unit of Kings College Hospital, London. There On 6 August 2014 a liver transplantation took place. Sadly in the period following the transplantation Michael Emmett developed a fungal infection of the bronchi and trachea and a sensitivity reaction to it. Every effort was made by those caring for him to combat the infection and deal with its sequelae.

Michael Emmett underwent tracheostomies, laparoscopies and abdominal washouts. On 27 August 2014 he suffered a catastrophic airway bleed in the area of the trachea and bronchi. Two further massive bleeds occurred on the 29 and 30 August.

On 2 September 2014 in consultation with the family of Michael Emmett a decision was made to withdraw life support. On that day Michael Emmett finally lost the fight for his life.

I have read the statements of Natalie Preece, the partner of Michael Emmett. Ms Preece was at Kings College Hospital with Michael Emmett in the four weeks prior to his death. He had an open wound on his stomach which could not be closed, the tracheostomy meant that he was unable to speak which he found difficult and upsetting. He was attached to a number of machines which caused him distress. Until the catastrophic bleed on 27 August 2014 Michael Emmett was aware of his surroundings and was distressed by his ill health.

John Williams was taken to hospital where he underwent surgery to repair his damaged bladder. The wounds to his shoulder, back and arm were stitched. He has been left with a scar in excess of 6 inches on his stomach which is a constant reminder of this attack. It is clear from a statement which has been made by John Williams that he continues to suffer the effects of the attack in feeling fear, weakness and vulnerability. Further he is distressed that a young male he befriended and supported in some difficult times had attacked him.

Following your arrest you were interviewed by the police. In your initial interviews you denied any knowledge of the stabbing. In your third interview on 3 August 2014 you admitted going to the house and obtaining the knife, you said in order to scare the men. You were originally charged in respect of both stabbings with the offence of wounding with intent. On 24 September 2014 following the death of Mr Emmett you were arrested for his murder.

Those acting on your behalf obtained assessments from a psychiatrist Dr. Darwish and psychologist Dr Davis who saw you in November 2014 and provided reports for the court.

In addition a detailed report from Dr Roger Kennedy prepared for Legal Services for Children dated 15 November 2013 and a psychologist’s report dated 2007 were before the court.

The position is this: you have had educational and behavioural difficulties from about the age of 11. It would appear that was when you began smoking cannabis and later in time using cannabis, mephedrone and cocaine.

By May 2013 following your arrest for GBH your mother refused to have you at home. Later placement include a residential unit and in October 2013 a secure unit.

In January 2014 you returned to the family home. It is the opinion of the two psychiatrists that you suffer from a severe conduct disorder characterised as a repetitive and persistent pattern of antisocial aggressive or defiant conduct.

Dr Llewellyn is also of the view that you demonstrate a subtype of the disorder namely callous and unemotional traits. All clinicians are agreed this is a genetic condition and not associated with poor parenting.

The diagnosis of severe conduct disorder does not constitute a mental illness Dr Darwish in November 2014 stated that ‘Connor Does not have a formal mental illness.

Further, it is undisputed you have a low IQ. Dr Davis states that this means you will have greater difficulty than most of your age in being able to problem solve and reflect upon your actions. You have difficulty processing and comprehending information. You have a history of learning difficulties and suffer from moderate to severe dyslexia.

Your family have striven hard to provide you with appropriate support both in and out of the home. Professional assistance has been sought but with limited, if any effect. The professional opinion is that you lose your temper easily and this has not been assisted by intellectual limitations, dyslexia and the use of illicit substances and alcohol.

In 2013 you began a spate of offending which led to your being taken into care and into a secure unit in Neath. Over a period of some 12 months your offences included criminal damage, assault, battery and breaches of ASBO’s.

In January 2014 you returned to live at home and initially made progress. Between January and June 2014 you ceased substance misuse but at the end of June you resumed use of mephedrone and alcohol. In July 2014 you recommenced work with your father and in fact had been working on the day of these offences.

Before the court is a pre-sentence report prepared in respect of the Section 18 offences and an addendum briefly deals with the charge of murder. There is only one recommendation in the report and that is a custodial sentence to ensure public protection.

As to the offences neither victim did anything to provoke the stabbing. They were doing what they could to take you to your home away from any trouble realising that you were in an aggressive frame of mind. Nothing they said or did could begin to justify your taking a knife still less pursuing them down the road and in turn stabbing each of them.

In taking the life of Michael Emmett you have robbed twin boys aged eight of their father. Lola, his daughter, born when her father was critically ill in Kings College Hospital, will never know him. Michael was excited about his daughter’s birth and looking forward to this special event. Natalie Preece lost not only her much loved partner and the father of her children, she has lost a source of strength and support within this close family. Their losses are devastating, such remorse as you have demonstrated has been limited. In court the remorse felt by your family for those affected by your actions was expressed in the clearest terms. The court was told that you do now feel true remorse. Before the court are letters attesting to the non aggressive aspect of your character and the support of your family.

You have pleaded guilty to the charge of the murder of Michael Emmett. The sentence of the court is detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. At the time of the offence you were aged 16 years and 6 months. As you were aged under 18 pursuant to Paragraph 7 Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the appropriate starting point in determining the minimum term of detention and thereafter imprisonment which you will serve is 12 years.

I turn to the aggravating and mitigating factors. You deliberately brought a knife, to the scene and used it to stab two men. You entered your home, went into the kitchen, obtained a kitchen knife left by a rear entrance and returned to the road where you knew Michael Emmett and John Williams were.

Had you been an adult at the date of this offence your action in bringing a knife to the scene would have warranted a starting point of 25 years. In my view such action constitutes a significant aggravating factor.

The sentence which I will pass in respect of the Section 18 wounding of John Williams will be a concurrent sentence of detention, however, the stabbing of a second victim within minutes of stabbing Michael Emmett was part of the same course of conduct and also constitutes an aggravating factor in respect of the charge of murder.

In the month prior to his death on 2 September 2014 Michael Emmett suffered physically and mentally in the intensive care units of two hospitals. Clinicians strove to save his life and carried out a number of procedures including the major surgical procedure of a liver transplantation. The fact of Michael Emmett’s suffering is also an aggravating factor of which I take account.

Notwithstanding its tragic consequences the stabbing of Michael Emmett was one stab to the stomach. You intended to cause serious bodily harm and on 4 August 2014 pleaded guilty to the s18 offence in respect of both Michael Emmett and John Williams. The prosecution and defence are at one: the basis of sentence is an intention to cause serious bodily harm not to kill. I agree. You pleaded guilty to the offence of murder on 17 December 2014.

Given the manner in which this case developed it was entirely proper that those who act on your behalf should obtain psychiatric and psychological reports. Having received the reports you were entitled to advice from your lawyers as to the way forward. I will proceed on the basis that your plea of guilty to murder was entered at the first reasonable opportunity for which you are entitled to credit.

It is now submitted on your behalf that there is a further mitigating factor namely the diagnosis of severe conduct disorder. The defence case is that such a disorder is not a disorder recognised by the Mental Health Act 1983 but it is a factor which lowers your culpability by reason of the effect which it has upon your ability to comprehend and thus control your actions.

I take account of the diagnosis of severe conduct disorder and the effect which it can have upon your ability to understand and process information. However, you made a conscious decision to go into your home, collect a knife, return to the road where Michael Emmett and John Williams were walking away and go after each man with that knife. Such weight as I attach to the disorder as a mitigating factor is limited by reason of the facts of this case.

Your age is a mitigating factor but one which is also reflected in the reduced starting point for the minimum term.

I have identified the aggravating and mitigating factors pertaining to the charge of murder. Having balanced each and all of them the sentence of the court is one of detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years. Credit will be given for 164 days spent in custody on remand. If the number of days spent on remand is incorrect, it can be corrected administratively.

It is important to emphasise that the term of 15 years less the days spent on remand, is not the actual term for which you will be detained; it is the minimum term you must serve before you can be considered for release by the parole board. The time you actually serve may be longer.

The parole board will only direct your release on license if it is satisfied that you are no longer a danger to members of the public. When you are released you will remain on license for the rest of your life and will be liable to be recalled by the Secretary of State.

The stabbing of John Williams was unprovoked and vicious. In sentencing you for this offence I do so upon the basis that I have had regard to it in the sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for the offence of murder. The sentence I pass is one of a detention and training order of 24 months this takes account of credit for the guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

The order is to run concurrently with the sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. For the assault upon PC Bowen-Davies which took the form of spitting, the court imposes no separate penalty. This is not to minimise the assault upon a police officer but reflects the scheme of sentencing of the court. The court makes no order in respect of the breach of the anti-social behaviour order.

Natalie Preece’s statements have conveyed with rawness and poignancy the devastation and loss which was felt following the death of Michael. No words of mine will ease the dark hours and days but to each of you I offer my condolences. To Natalie I wish you strength too in the years ahead as you strive to give Logan, Riley and Lola the upbringing which you and Michael would have wished for them.