Thug who said 'are you laughing at me' before stabbing boy on Formby beach has appeal dismissed

A thug who asked a teenager "are you laughing at me?" before repeatedly stabbing him has had an appeal against his sentence dismissed. Knifeman Rhaheem Hamed, who was just short of his 17th birthday at the time of the attack, chased down and repeatedly stabbed his victim in front of "horrified bystanders" on Formby beach.

The sickening and unprovoked "two-on-one" attack on the unarmed youngster left him with injuries including a collapsed lung and ruptured spleen. Hamed, now 20, was sentenced in April this year to six years' detention in a young offender institution for wounding with intent and possession of a knife.

Hamed was granted permission to appeal against the length of his sentence before the Court of Appeal. But in a written judgement by three senior judges seen by the ECHO, the court dismissed his appeal, calling the "gratuitous joint attack" a "very bad case of its kind".

READ MORE: Connor Chapman's murder accomplice could be released early

READ MORE: Police officers accused of 'spraying colleagues with laughing gas'

The ECHO previously reported how the victim was among a group who had gathered at the beach on Sunday, May 30 2021, and was walking back towards Freshfield Station while "laughing with friends" shortly after 7pm. As they did so, the now 19-year-old heard a voice ask: "Are you laughing at me?"

David Watson, prosecuting, told Hamed's trial how the victim was then chased by a gang of youths, "running as fast as he could" before being taken to the ground on Victoria Road. The victim subsequently recalled being knifed and then blacking out. The teen suffered wounds to the lower left of his back, a collapsed lung, a ruptured spleen and broken ribs during the incident.

He spent four days in Aintree Hospital after being admitted to the major trauma unit, during which time he underwent a blood transfusion and a chest drain. One cyclist described seeing him being kicked on the floor before Hamed, formerly of Arnold Crescent in Toxteth, crouched over him with a large knife with a six-inch blade and stabbing him two to three times. The defendant then ran off before the witness rushed to the casualty's aid.

A woman who was on the beach with her boyfriend meanwhile saw the victim being chased by a male and female. She began filming the altercation on her mobile phone as he was kicked before capturing the moment of the stabbing on video. Hamed was later seen "pacing up and down" at the train station before making his way back to south Liverpool. He was arrested at his home on June 23 that year, with police seizing clothing matching the garments he was seen wearing in the footage.

His criminal record amounted to two previous convictions for three offences, all of which were committed after the stabbing. Hamed was brought before a judge in October 2022 following an incident in Towyn in North Wales in April that year which saw him threaten fairground workers with a baseball bat.

During his sentencing, Cheryl Mottram, defending, said: "For a postal requisition to take two years when it would seem that the crown had all of the evidence very early on is not something that can be laid at this defendant's door, in my submission. It is perhaps one of those sorry situations where Mr Hamed has all the potential to be a productive member of the community.

"He is certainly very highly regarded by the individuals who have taken the time to write references on his behalf. He certainly seems to be a hard working individual and a kind and caring individual to those around him. He has a very supportive family. This will be his first taste of custody.

"It will be difficult for him, especially in light of the fact that the sentence will be measured in years and not months. I ask the court to give him a sentence that does not quash all hope that this man has for the future."

But Judge Stuart Driver KC, sentencing, told the then teenager: "You deliberately took a knife out with you in a backpack to a beach where you knew there would be lots of young people. For no reason, explosively, you used it on a busy street, horrifying innocent bystanders."

He added the case was aggravated by Hamed's criminal record since the attack, but said the most powerful mitigation was his age, sentencing him as a 16-year-old. The Court of Appeal said the judge reduced Hamed's sentence by one third because of his age.

Sir Nigel Davis, who wrote the Court of Appeal report alongside Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs Justice Stacey, said Judge Driver sensibly didn't impose an extended sentence. But Ms Mottram appearing before the Court of Appeal "argued extremely well" that the offending was wrongly categorised as the victim was released from hospital after four days.

But Sir Nigel said: "However, one only needs to consider the nature of knife injuries to see that the harm here was properly categorised by the judge as grave, not least because the wounds inflicted had been of sufficient depth to involve a puncture of a lung and a lacerated spleen, as well as other wounds.

"Moreover, it is the fact that the complainant had had to be admitted to a major trauma ward and indeed had been detained in hospital for four days. The appellant can perhaps count himself fortunate that the injuries had not in fact taken the life of the complainant. At all events, we can see no error in the judge's categorisation for sentencing purposes."

He continued: "Overall, this was a very bad case of its kind. This was effectively a gratuitous joint attack. The appellant had gone equipped with a large knife, clearly prepared to use it if he wished, and he did use it, in circumstances which never began to call for any such behaviour on his behalf. He stabbed several times with forcible blows.

"As we have said, the impact on the complainant might have been far more serious than in fact occurred. It may be, not least because of the age of the appellant at the time, that this sentence can be regarded as a stern one. Nevertheless, we are not able to conclude that it was excessive and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

"We add just one further matter. It is a troubling aspect of this case that throughout, and at the time of the pre-sentence report, this appellant has failed to accept full responsibility for his appalling conduct. We were very glad to hear from Ms Mottram this morning that he does now face up to his responsibility in this regard and that is a very encouraging aspect of this matter. In the result, however, and as we have said, we dismiss this appeal."