Two 16-year-old boys have been found guilty of murdering Luis Guembes, a 15-year-old, following a dispute over £40 at Stoke Park in Guildford during January. A jury at Guildford Crown Court delivered guilty verdicts on Tuesday after hearing evidence that the teenagers had deliberately lured Guembes to the location to rob him and settle what they claimed was a debt related to a damaged mobile phone. According to BBC News, both defendants face mandatory life sentences, with sentencing scheduled for 18 December.
The trial revealed that the two boys, who were aged 15 and 16 at the time of the attack, had planned the robbery in advance. The older defendant had already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob and possession of a bladed article before the jury reached its verdict. The younger teenager was convicted of those same additional charges alongside the murder conviction.
How serious were the injuries?
Medical evidence presented during the trial showed that Luis Gabriel Guembes sustained multiple stab wounds to the head, shoulder and lower back. The wound to his lower back proved fatal, piercing his stomach, severing his left kidney and striking his spine. An inquest that opened on 29 January recorded a stab wound to the back of the abdomen as the provisional cause of death, though proceedings were adjourned pending the conclusion of the criminal case.
What did the judge say?
Justice Norton addressed the court following the convictions, emphasising the gravity of the case.
There are no winners, it is invariably sad for everyone involved,she stated. The judge explained that the sentence for murder is mandated by law as a life sentence and indicated she would require reports from multiple organisations before determining the specific terms of imprisonment.
Norton also acknowledged the rights of Guembes's family to submit a victim impact statement.
Louis' family have a right to tell me what the effect of his death has been on them and they need time to process that and prepare a statement on that.She noted that proceeding with sentencing immediately would be inappropriate given the additional information she had requested and the need for the family to prepare their statement.
The judge further remarked that sentencing the teenagers at 16:00 GMT would be inadvisable under the circumstances, citing the complexity of the case and the materials she still needed to review before determining their sentences.
What happens next?
Both teenagers, whose identities are protected due to their age, will return to court on 18 December for sentencing. At that hearing, the judge will deliver the mandatory life sentences and determine the minimum terms they must serve before becoming eligible for parole consideration.
