Drug dealer who caused Newcastle house blast which killed two people to have sentence reviewed
Reece Galbraith caused the blast at Violet Close in Benwell in the early hours of 16 October 2024 while making cannabis gummy sweets.
He and his friend Jason 'Jay' Laws were using a Newcastle flat as a drugs lab when the explosion ripped through the building, killing both laws and seven-year-old Archie York who was sleeping in the flat above.
Galbraith, of Rectory Road in Gateshead, pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter as well as possessing and supplying cannabis.
The Attorney General's Office has confirmed that a request has been received to review Galbraith's sentence under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme, adding that a decision will be made "in due course."
What is the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme?
Under the scheme, anyone - including those not involved in the case - can ask for a sentence to be reviewed.
The Law Officers will then have 28 days to consider the sentence and refer it to the Court of Appeal if they agree it was unduly lenient.
In this scenario, the Court of Appeal will make a final decision on whether a sentence should be increased.
The blast at Violet Close destroyed six of the 12 flats in the block. It was followed by a 'fierce fire' that caused such extensive damage to the whole block that it has since been demolished.
Police investigating the explosion discovered that the flat operated by Galbraith and Laws was used as a 'drugs lab' to produce cannabis concentrates, known as "shatter" or "butane honey oil," in a highly dangerous process.
Galbraith suffered extensive burns and was placed in an induced coma following the blast.
Bodyworn from Northumbria Police shows the moment Reece Galbraith is arrested
Jailing Galbraith, the judge, Mr Justice Cotter, said: "Archie York was just a seven-year-old with a wonderful and exciting life ahead of him.
"His parents have so movingly explained, their world was shattered on October 16 when their flat was blown apart and they woke up buried under the rubble, dazed, bleeding and terrified to realise their precious son had been lost."
He went on to say: "Violet Close was a close-knit, multi-racial community with many families that was literally blown apart as a result of your illegal activities in their midst, regardless of the clear risks to others."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Conor McGregor faces wait over appeal against sexual assault verdict
Conor McGregor withdrew evidence in his appeal against a civil ruling that he sexually assaulted Nikita Hand after a night out in December 2018 An Irish court has said it will refer claims by witnesses Conor McGregor pulled from his appeal to the director of public prosecutions (DPP), after concerns about perjury arose. It came after a request by the lawyer of Nikita Hand, 35, who successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. McGregor, who told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, launched an appeal after a jury of eight women and four men found him civilly liable for assault. That appeal was expected to contain fresh evidence following an affidavit from a former neighbour of Ms Hand, Samantha O'Reilly, who said she had witnessed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then-partner at about the same time of the incident at the Beacon hotel. Ms Hand denies any altercation with her former partner and the court heard she characterised the claims from Ms O'Reilly and Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins as 'lies'. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal, saying it would no longer be relying on the material. On Wednesday, Ms Hand's lawyer John Gordon SC said she had been disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims from the affidavits, adding that she did not have a chance to reply to them in court before they were withdrawn. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation', including by stating she had lied. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, had raised concerns that the request was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. Mr Gordon said Ms Hand was 'put through the wringer yet again' and expressed a desire to cross examine Mr Cummins and Ms O'Reilly. He asked the Court of Appeal to use its powers to refer matters to the DPP, citing concerns around perjury. The three judges of the court, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said they would do so. After a day and a half of representations, they also said they would reserve their judgment on the appeal matters to a later date, adding that decisions relating to costs that arose during deliberations would be decided at that point also. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded around £200,000 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about £1.1million in legal costs following November's trial. McGregor's appeal proceeded on other grounds, largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He said it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. Meanwhile, McGregor's co-defendant has also appealed against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs. During the same trial in November, the jury did not find James Lawrence had assaulted Ms Hand at the hotel. However, trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Mr Boland said the success of Mr Lawrence's appeal would present 'grubby realities' where McGregor would effectively 'snaffle' back money he had to pay in damages. He told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at nought' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said Mr Owens made the decision not to award costs based on an incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict and that his client had an entitlement to costs. The Irish Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment in relation to the appeals of McGregor and Lawrence and will give its decisions at a later date.
BreakingNews.ie
2 days ago
- BreakingNews.ie
McGregor could use Lawrence appeal as ‘avatar' to reduce legal bill, court told
Conor McGregor's co-defendant winning an appeal over costs would present 'grubby realities' where the fighter effectively 'snaffles' back money he had to pay in damages, the Court of Appeal has been told. Lawyers for a woman who successfully sued McGregor have argued he could use his co-defendant as an 'avatar' because the mixed martial arts fighter had paid his legal costs. Advertisement Judges at the Court of Appeal in Dublin are considering applications from both McGregor and James Lawrence, who was the co-defendant in a civil case taken last year. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin in December 2018. Conor McGregor outside the High Court in Dublin in 2024 (Brian Lawless/PA) Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded €248,603.60 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about €1.3 million in legal costs. The jury did not find that Mr Lawrence had assaulted her during the same series of incidents at the hotel. Advertisement The trial judge decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Nikita Hand won her civil case against the mixed martial arts fighter (Niall Carson/PA) Meanwhile, McGregor's lawyers are arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardaí into their investigation of the matter. On Wednesday, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. Advertisement He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at naught' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. Advertisement John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said an 'unusual situation' had arisen in the case around the interpretation of the jury's verdict by trial judge Alexander Owens. He said the point he was making in the appeal was essentially that 'costs follow the event'. Given the principle of jury secrecy, he said the event is the verdict and not a subsequent interpretation of it. Mr Fitzgerald said the verdict was that Mr Lawrence had not assaulted Ms Hand. Advertisement He said said his client had said that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. He added that Ms Hand had also said she did not believe they had sex, and that Mr Lawrence was lying. Mr Fitzgerald said this begs the question as to how it made its way into a pleading on her behalf. He said it had been open to Ms Hand not to sue Mr Lawrence. Mr Fitzgerald said trial judge Mr Alexander Owens' decision not to award costs was based on his incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict. He said Mr Owens could have added additional questions to the issue paper or asked the jury direct questions about their verdict. He said said defendants had a presumptive entitlement to costs and 'we shouldn't even be having this discussion'. Ray Boland, SC, for Ms Hand, said this entitlement arises where they have incurred expenses – but this was not the case for Mr Lawrence as there was an 'unusual situation' that McGregor had borne the costs. He said it was 'rich' for Mr Fitzgerald to be raising the matter in appeal when there was 'deafening silence' from him during discussions on the issue paper and whether there should have been additional questions for the jury following the verdict. Mr Fitzgerald said the purpose of the appeal was to consider the correctness of the judge's reasoning – and that he had been satisfied with the issue paper. On the argument that it would deprive Ms Hand of her damages, Mr Fitzgerald said there had to be cost implications for her choice to bring a case 'she never believed in'. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said Mr Boland was making a 'difficult' argument by asking judges at the Court of Appeal to consider the consequences of their verdict as it was their job to consider whether the trial decision was appropriate. Ms Justice Kennedy and the other two judges presiding over the proceedings continue to consider other matters relating to the appeals.
Glasgow Times
2 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Glasgow councillors' fears over facial recognition tech
It comes as police forces in England and Wales, who have been using facial recognition technology (FRT) since 2015, expanded its use with some police forces using live facial recognition, which involves scanning public spaces and crowds in real time to match faces against a database of images. FRT has been used in various community contexts, including protests, sporting events, concerns as well as busy shopping streets. During Thursday's full council meeting, a motion was presented to councillors over the legal challenges regarding the use of FRT following the result of the Ed Bridges' case where the Court of Appeal said the South Wales Police's use of live facial recognition (LFR) violated privacy rights and broke data protection and equality laws. In 2017, Police Scotland said its initial ambition was to introduce LFR in 2026 as part of their 10-year strategy 'Policing 2026' but decided in 2020 not to advance this after a report by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing stated that there was 'no justifiable basis for Police Scotland to invest in the technology'. Councillors have been made aware that while the Scottish Police Authority is not consulting on the introduction of LFR it is debating its potential introduction on whether or not the work should be taken forward. Following a Freedom of Information request in March 2025, it has been confirmed that Police Scotland is considering enhancing CCTV resources with the introduction of Briefcam's object matching software, which also has capabilities to match faces live. Police Scotland has stated they will not use this element of the technology if updated. READ MORE: Poor quality photos 'could lead to crimes not being solved' READ MORE: Send us photos of your June newborn to appear in Glasgow Times Speaking about her motion, Bailie Martha Wardrop said: 'Police Facial Recognition technology is being discussed by residents who are concerned about the impact it will have on their civil liberties and democratic freedoms. 'It has to be acknowledged that this technology challenges democratic principles and carries out mass identity checks on everyone in real time regardless of any suspicion on them. 'This is described as the equivalent of police stopping every passerby to check DNA or fingerprints. It gives police extraordinary power to identify and track people without knowledge or consent. 'This can bring about an erosion of the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. The use of this technology completely changes policing. Instead of investigating after a reasonable cause to do so, this technology treats everyone as a potential suspect undermining privacy and civic freedoms. 'There is also concern about the technology being built on flawed discriminatory data and this results in disproportionately targeting of black, marginalised groups, migrants and low-income communities. 'Rather than making our communities safer, evidence suggests that this technology will reinforce racism and criminalise poverty.' Glasgow City Council has now vowed to work with the police to ensure that use of the technology is fit for purpose, non-discriminatory and respects the rights of Glasgow citizens. Council leader Susan Aitken will now write to the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority to indicate their view and these factors be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to progress with trials or implementation of live FRT.
