🔴 THE SELFIE KILLERS: TEEN GANG JAILED AFTER POSING FOR PHOTOS CELEBRATING DEADLY ATTACK

Although there were later missed opportunities for medical intervention, the prosecution said he would not have died but for the attack. Mr Marks ultimately died on 14 September 2024 following further complications from the brain injury.

Sentencing the defendants, Judge Mark Dennis KC said Bingham had “elevated” the confrontation by using the bottle with “severe violence”.

Detective Inspector Jim Barry said the case exposed the “ruthless brutality of county lines gangs”, adding: “They believed they had escaped justice, even posing for selfies together. Those images helped place them at the scene and were key to securing these convictions.”

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

The imposition of a life sentence with a minimum term of 16 years on a defendant who was 16 at the time of the attack, alongside two separate manslaughter sentences, highlights how English criminal law approaches fatal violence where death is delayed, intention is disputed, and culpability differs within a group assault.

The life sentence imposed on a defendant who was 16 at the time reflects the special sentencing framework for children convicted of murder. A life sentence is mandatory, but the court must set a minimum term that reflects both culpability and youth. A 16-year minimum term for a teenage offender is severe, but lawful, where the violence is extreme and intention to cause serious injury is proved. The sentencing judge is required to consider age as mitigation, not immunity. The two manslaughter convictions arise from differing levels of intent. While all three were joint participants in a violent assault, the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two female defendants shared the intent to kill or cause really serious harm. Their liability arose from participation in an unlawful and dangerous attack that resulted in death. This distinction preserves a core principle of criminal law: sentence must reflect individual culpability, even within group violence.

This case illustrates how a murder conviction can properly follow even where the victim is not left dead at the scene, continues with his life for a period, and there was no proven intent to kill. Under English law, murder requires an unlawful killing with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It does not require immediate death, nor does it require premeditation. Where a defendant deliberately inflicts severe violence and that violence remains an operating and substantial cause of death, criminal liability for murder can follow even if death occurs weeks later and after intervening events, including imprisonment or medical treatment.

The jury accepted that the fatal blows — delivered with a glass bottle to the head — caused catastrophic brain injury. Although Mr Marks later returned to prison and there were acknowledged missed medical opportunities, the prosecution proved that these did not break the chain of causation. The law is clear that negligent treatment or later custody will not absolve the attacker unless it is so independent and overwhelming that the original assault becomes insignificant. That threshold was not met.

ON X ⬇️

https://x.com/ukcourtslive/status/2008554016289288564