THE utter devastation brought about by the needless death of Mark Ayton was summed up by Mr Sandy Bolland QC, defence counsel for one of the youths responsible for the tragedy.
''Nothing can bring Mark Ayton back to life. Nothing can recompense his family for his loss. The sad fact in cases such as this is that all families, not just the deceased's are damaged forever.''
It was a sentiment endorsed by Lord Eassie in his detailed and carefully-worded explanation for choosing to sentence each accused to four years' detention.
''All involved in this case are conscious, I am sure, of the great loss his family have suffered through that death which should never have happened and need never have happened.''
The judge said that he had been asked to consider non-custodial sentences, but pointed out that the accused had repeatedly kicked and stamped on Mark Ayton's head as he lay on the ground.
''In view of the nature and gravity of the crime it is necessary that you atone for it by serving a period of detention.''
The conduct of the three accused had been disgraceful, no doubt fuelled by alcohol, but he had to take account of the fact that Mark's death was unusual and had divided medical opinion because the degree of violence inflicted had been relatively minor.
''The evidence was that no individual blow to his head was of major force and even in their totality only very modest violence was involved. That is an important consideration I have to bear in mind.
''The evidence given by the pathologist on the degree of force being minor is consistent with other circumstances indicating that Mark Ayton's death was the unexpected outcome of ongoing juvenile but deplorable skirmishes between certain youths from Balerno and certain youths from Currie.''
The judge said that however distasteful it might be to criticise someone who was dead he was bound to note that Mark and Paul Ayton had been ''willing participants'' in hostility and assaults which had immediately preceded the fatal attack. The brothers had not gone home peaceably but instead maintained a position of confrontation and aggression.
It was also clear that while the accused had intended to assault Mark Ayton by kicking him in the head, they had not intended to inflict the very serious harm that went far beyond the scope of what had been delivered and received in previous skirmishes between local youths.
''It is that juvenile but deplorable conduct which lies at the root of Mark Ayton's death.''
Lord Eassie told the youths: ''Your parents' professions and occupations are of little relevance to me. I look at you as 17-year-old first offenders employed at the time of the offences in good jobs, all of good character, and all from good homes. You have each brought similar disgrace and anguish to your parents and I accept that you are all remorseful.''
Earlier, in pleas in mitigation, defence counsel for the accused had stressed that this had not been a ''gang'' battle and that the meeting between the Ayton brothers and the accused's group on the fatal night had been pure chance.
Mr Jack Davidson QC, for Wheldon, said background reports described him as a quiet, confident and trustworthy lad and there was little likelihood that he would offend again.
Mr Sandy Bolland QC, for Purves, said that several letters of support had been written on Purves' behalf, including one from his parish priest which described the accused as gentle, self-effacing, good natured and mild-mannered.
In a letter to the court, Gravestock said: ''I hope one day I will be forgiven by everybody involved in this horrible accident. I am very, very sorry for what happened and I hope everyone will be able to start getting their lives back together as soon as possible.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article