Two teenagers have been sentenced to 10 years in custody followed by a three-year extended period for their involvement in a deliberate arson attack at an east London Indian restaurant that left multiple diners with severe burns.
The boys, now 17, entered Indian Aroma in Gants Hill in August 2025 armed with machetes. They held the doors shut while a third accomplice poured fuel throughout the room and ignited it. Eight customers were dining in the restaurant at the time of the attack, and the perpetrators fled the scene in a stolen car.
At sentencing at the Old Bailey, Judge Michael Grieve KC characterised the assault as a
"sophisticated and professional" attack "in cold blood", noting that the offenders were fully aware of the almost inevitable consequences of their actions. The pair, who cannot be named due to their age, had initially denied the charges but were convicted of arson with intent to endanger life. According to local reporting, they were also convicted of possessing a bladed article, and one had earlier pleaded guilty to failing to disclose a PIN.
A married couple in their 20s were among those dining at the restaurant when the masked attackers arrived. The perpetrators poured petrol on the woman, causing severe burns and melting her clothes to her skin. She was placed in a medically-induced coma to recover from burns affecting 50% of her total body surface area, with 45% classified as full-thickness burns. Her husband ran from the restaurant while on fire and sustained mixed-depth burns to more than half of his total body surface area.
How did the attack unfold?
According to court reporting, prosecutor James Dawes KC told the court that the attack's preparations were extensive and the perpetrators had separate, well-defined roles in executing the assault. The third accomplice, who poured the fuel and set the fire, was not involved in the trial or sentencing hearing.
Police arrested the two teenagers approximately two weeks after the incident. Investigators recovered trainers and a balaclava from the scene that matched items observed on CCTV footage, providing crucial evidence in the case.
What impact did the attack have on victims?
The prosecution barrister described the incident as a
"completely traumatic and appalling incident"that had
"transformed their personal lives". Other victims reported experiencing
"agonising physical pain", while another stated their life had been
"upended"by the attack.
Judge Grieve told the defendants:
"You were both fully aware of the almost inevitable consequences, namely to cause serious harm, up to and including death, to complete strangers."He further observed that the victims
"have suffered agonising and life-changing injuries – and it could have been worse".
What arguments did the defence present?
Mark Graffius KC, representing one of the youths, contended that the petrol was not poured deliberately on the customers' shoulders and that the fuel was not ignited while all customers remained seated. Nneka Akudolu KC, defending the other teenager, stated that her client was
"sorry"for the
"painful and life-changing injuries"the victims had endured. She appealed to the court, saying:
"(He) cannot undo the past but he is asking this court not to make the sentence too crushingly long that he cannot look forward to an opportunity to build a very different future."
Judge Grieve acknowledged that the teenagers had been acting under direction, stating:
"I have no doubt that you were carrying out this operation on the direction of some older and more experienced criminal who has not been identified… but you did so with cold blood."
Key Facts
- Two 17-year-old boys were sentenced to 10 years in custody plus three years extended licence for the August 2025 arson attack at Indian Aroma in Gants Hill
- A married couple sustained severe burns, with the woman requiring a medically-induced coma to recover from burns covering 50% of her body surface
- The teenagers were convicted of arson with intent to endanger life, possessing a bladed article, and related offences; a third accomplice involved in the attack has not been identified or tried
- Judge Michael Grieve KC described the attack as sophisticated, professional, and carried out in cold blood, with the perpetrators fully aware of the risk of death to strangers
- The motive for the attack remained unclear at the time of the convictions
