SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On 21 July 2026, on passing sentence, Lord Scott said the following to the accused:

“Given the age of the 3^rd accused, I will refer to him throughout as AB.

Cole Turley, you have pled guilty to the murder of Kayden Moy on 17 May 2025, just over 14 months ago. In doing so, consistent with the evidence at trial, you accepted  that it was you who stabbed Kayden Moy, either wickedly intending to kill him or assaulting and fatally wounding him with wicked recklessness as to whether he lived or died, that is that you showed complete indifference as to whether he lived or died.

Jay Stewart and AB, while neither of you was directly involved in the physical act of stabbing Kayden Moy, you were both convicted of his murder. The jury therefore accepted that you acted together with Cole Turley with the joint purpose of killing Kayden Moy or one of his group or, at the very least, in a joint purpose which involved the use of serious violence carrying an obvious or foreseeable risk that someone in his group would be killed.

Although your names are in a different order in the indictment, when I deal with you individually, I will continue to address you in the order Cole Turley, Jay Stewart and AB.

Before that, however, there is an important matter I must address. There is a Victim Impact Statement, prepared by Kayden Moy’s mother and father on behalf of them and Kayden’s 2 younger brothers, as well as other family and friends.  This powerful statement helps me to understand the unspeakable loss and harm you have caused to that family.

Kayden’s parents describe the continuing daily impact on them, in many different ways, of the traumatic loss of a 16 year old boy who was at the centre of their family. They describe their acute awareness of his permanent absence.  

They describe Kayden’s dreams, ambitions and efforts towards his ambition of setting up his own painting and decorating company. That and more stolen from them in a few short minutes of senseless violence.

As the trial focused only on the last few hours, minutes and seconds of Kayden’s life, it is appropriate to quote more of what his loving parents say about him:

“Kayden was only 16 years old. He was an amazing boy who lit up every room he walked into. His laugh was infectious, his smile unforgettable, and his presence brought happiness to everyone around him. He was caring, respectful, well-mannered, and had a maturity beyond his years.

Kayden had the biggest heart. He was kind, loyal, and thoughtful, always ready to help anyone who needed him. He had a special way of making people feel comfortable and valued. Everyone who met him loved him. He made friends easily and was deeply loved by his family, his friends, and everyone fortunate enough to know him…

Since the day Kayden was taken from us, our lives have completely fallen apart. We are devastated beyond words. The pain of losing a child is something no parent should ever have to endure. There are no words that can truly describe the emptiness and heartbreak we now live with. It is a constant pain that never leaves us.

As his parents, we carry an unimaginable burden. The shock, trauma, and grief affect every part of our lives. There is an empty chair at family gatherings, an empty bedroom in our home, and an emptiness in our hearts that can never be filled. We do not simply miss Kayden on special occasions; we miss him every minute of every day.

No sentence imposed by this court can bring our son back, or ease the pain , Nothing can undo the devastation that has been caused. But we ask the court to remember when considering your punishment years that this was not just a life taken. This was our son, a 16-year old boy with a bright future, a loving family, and dreams that deserved the chance to become reality.

Kayden mattered. He was loved beyond measure, and he will be missed for the rest of our lives.”

It is obvious that there has been a massive impact on that family.  Nothing said or done here today, and no sentence I impose will be enough to help Kayden Moy’s family with the devastating and traumatic loss of a much loved son, brother, grandson, nephew, cousin and friend to many. The punishment part I must impose is in no way a measure of his life and the enormous harm of what you did. I am grateful to his parents for explaining their loss to me by telling me a little about their son. I am grateful to them too for the quiet, dignified and respectful way they conducted themselves as they attended every day of the trial, despite the incredible difficulty of sitting and listening to distressing evidence about their son’s murder.

Before passing sentence, I asked for a Justice Social Work Report on each of you.  This was with a view to finding out more about your background and any other relevant information before passing a life sentence, not least because of your young age. I wanted to see these reports which I now have, despite the fact that I must pass a life sentence on each of you. In your case, Cole Turley, I also have a detailed psychological report dated 15 May 2026, prepared by the clinical psychologist.

As I am sure you know, I must also set a punishment part for each of you which is the minimum period of time you will have to serve in these life sentences. The reports have assisted me in determining that period.

COLE TURLEY

The report in your case has been prepared with input from a number of mental health and social work professionals.

It explains your use of cocaine and alcohol in the days leading up to and just before the murder. You have given an unconvincing and self-serving account of how you and your 2 co-accused came to travel to Irvine beach. Your account of events immediately before the murder is inconsistent with much of the evidence. In particular, the evidence suggested that Kayden Moy had no weapon or indeed anything in his hand. Your movement towards him was confrontational, completely unnecessary and in no way in self-defence. Kayden seemed to slip and you stabbed him as he scrambled to escape. He was vulnerable at that point, offering no threat to you. It seems on the evidence that you may have had no particular target in mind. Your intention, shared with your co-accused, was to engage in an armed attack on a member of the Himshie group. Kayden just happened to become your victim because he slipped and fell.

You describe the stabbing as “a blur”, no doubt at least in part due to intoxication with cocaine and alcohol, but perhaps also because you have not yet truly come to terms with the enormity and finality of what you have done. I note that, despite admitting it to the author of the JSWR, you denied any drug use when you spoke to the clinical psychologist. That suggests an unwillingness to be frank at times. You were at least candid enough to accept in speaking with the clinical psychologist that what could be seen in the video footage in the case was not how you remembered things regarding what Kayden Moy did, reinforcing the idea that you have rewritten some of these events, perhaps to try to come out of them better or deal with what you did. Your account of what happened after the murder is also at odds to some extent with evidence in the trial.

You accept taking a knife with you to the beach although claim not to have done so with the intention of causing harm. You have minimised the planning involved in the incident although I accept that, otherwise, you take responsibility for your actions. You have described feelings of remorse and guilt – indeed the clinical psychologist describes you as being “saturated with remorse” -  although more work is required on this and your insight more generally into behaviour, in particular around the habitual carrying of knives which you appear by experience to have come to consider normal.

The report gives me details about adverse childhood experiences, including the traumatic death of your father when you were only 11. You witnessed and experienced domestic abuse and violence and, due to concerns for you and your family, there was social work involvement from the time you were born which continued until the termination of a Compulsory Supervision Order as you approached the age of 18. Related to this, I note the very recent diagnosis of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and possible impairment it causes in a number of areas, including executive functioning which includes impulse control and hyperactivity. You meet “the description of 'borderline intellectual functioning'”. The clinical psychologist says you are “reactive, impulsive, and experience[s] sudden and extreme shifts in emotion”. She addresses all of this in detail in her report which explains, at least in part, how you may have been hypervigilant to threat, albeit that omits the role played by significant drug use that day and the fact that this was a planned act of violence.

The report states:

“The nature of Mr Turley's offending appears to be engrained [sic] in the context of youth violence and conflict. Mr Turley's behaviour during the index offence appears to have elements of being reckless and deliberate.”

The “young team” culture of territoriality and habitual carrying of weapons appear to be examples of extremely negative peer behaviour and pressure which you considered normal until your remand in custody gave you some time to reflect. The past year has seen you develop some insight into this behaviour.

You are assessed as presenting with the maximum level of risk and need, requiring a high level of support and intervention, although I leave the question of risk out of account as that will be a matter for the Parole Board to assess in due course.

The report recognises some of the wider effects of what you did:

“…the harm caused by the index offence has impacted the community as a whole... Present at the beach were a number of young people aged 17 and 18. It is likely that witnessing such a violent attack will have a lasting negative impact on the community in general.”

It seems that there is much which can be done while you are in custody to try to address some of the factors that contributed to what you did and where you find yourself at the age of only 18. The clinical psychologist suggests that groupwork may be of particular benefit in your case at some point in the future. It is to be hoped that you accept some of the help and support which is available which can only be in the interests of society as a whole as well as yours.

Today, Mr Stewart has emphasised your plea of guilty which is still unusual in cases of murder. I will give that some weight, albeit the plea came very late in the day. The offer to plead guilty to culpable homicide had no real practical or utilitarian value.

JAY STEWART

Significantly in your case, you have previous convictions as well as matters dealt with by the Children’s Hearings. You have 2 convictions, one for various charges including possession of a knife in a public place and possession of a metal pole as part of threatening and abusive behaviour. At the time of the murder, you were on a structured deferred sentence for that case, no doubt including a condition to be of good behaviour. In fact, you had been placed on deferred sentence only 2 months earlier. While that matter was dealt with on summary complaint, your other conviction on 22 April 2025 was on indictment and was for possession of a machete in a public place. You were made subject to a community payback order in that case just 4 days before your involvement in Kayden Moy’s murder.

Your previous convictions are aggravations and have a bearing on the culpability or blame to be attached to you in this case.

The report in your case has been prepared with input from a number of social work and other professionals, as well as your mother. It indicates your capacity for maturity and emotional intelligence, although sounds warnings around your entrenched involvement in gang culture.

You explained to the author that “some of the codes of your [this] gang included loyalty to other members, protecting your [their] territory and dominance over other rival groups, particularly in the East Kilbride area. Information gathered indicates violent acts, use of weapons and broadly speaking anti-social behaviour was acceptable and encouraged.”

You also gave the impression “that any perceived threat to the image or safety of those within the gang, would lead to acts of aggression, with or without weapons, ensuring that a sense of mastery and your [their] desired self-image was maintained” and that “this was a gang related incident”.

You describe your life at the time as being “a shambles” with use of drink and drugs and “a general pattern of chaos”. You accept being heavily intoxicated that day through the use of alcohol and cocaine. Although it makes no sense and is also contrary to some of the evidence, you maintain that your admitted possession of a baton was coincidental to a trip to Irvine with friends on a sunny day, claiming, without any plausibility, that it was unrelated to the presence there of rival group members. Although your recollection of events is “particularly poor” due to intoxication, you claim to have had memories triggered in court by some of the video evidence.  The memories you claim have returned are all favourable to you suggesting innocence of the charge, something clearly rejected by the jury when they convicted you. Rather than reflecting on your own proven involvement, you have sought to deflect to what others may have done. I reject your unconvincing efforts to escape responsibility, although, if there was anything in them, they might be thought to suggest a reason for targeting Kayden Moy which was absent in the evidence at trial.

The most you seem to accept, despite having no substantial or convincing memory of what happened, is that you acted like a “dafty”. Your involvement went well beyond that limited and self-serving suggestion. You were not merely there and behaving badly in some stupid, minor manner. The jury accepted that it had been proved that you were part of a plan to attack one of the Himshie group with weapons and in a joint purpose “which involved the use of serious violence carrying an obvious or foreseeable risk that someone would be killed”. This ties in with your strong sense of belonging and loyalty to the Murray group in which you considered yourself a “top man” who “couldn’t be seen to back down” for fear of being seen as weak and losing credibility with the group who you considered as being like family to you.

The report tells me that you too have suffered adverse childhood experiences, suggesting that “it is possible that these may have contributed to a numbing of emotional responsiveness and feelings of detachment in terms of his violent behaviour.” These included a traumatic bereavement at the age of 4. You too witnessed domestic abuse and violence, although failed to participate in counselling for this which was offered. You too had social work involvement and were made subject to a compulsory home supervision order due to concerns about risk to the public. Subsequently you were placed on the Child Protection Register, partly through placing yourself at risk and later due to emotional harm to you caused by parental neglect. Further supervision was tried from 2021 to 2024 although you persistently returned to your gang and criminal behaviour.

When you were only 15, you were stabbed while intoxicated in gang-related violence and reprisal. It seems that you were lucky not to be more seriously injured. Head injuries in other attacks are also noted. Given your own experiences, you should have known not to become involved in incidents with weapons and violence. You have been referred to psychiatry within the prison and await an appointment and assessment.

I am told that you have remained drug-free while in custody. You have engaged well in the Positive Choices course in Polmont and otherwise generally engaged in positive activities there, resulting recently in you securing a position as hall passman. It is to be hoped that you continue to make the most of such opportunities and that you avoid any more misconduct reports beyond the 2 already received for fighting and reckless endangerment of others.

The report explains issues with your physical and mental health, with the latter no doubt involved in your heavy drug use from an early age.

You too are assessed as scoring in the maximum risk category level although I leave that out of account as I must, risk being a matter for the Parole Board.

Regarding violence and your victims, the report states:

“Typically, Mr Stewart will perceive them to have threatened or in some way disrespected him or members of his gang, to which he has responded with disproportionate and serious violence. The nature of Mr Stewart’s violence appears to have been planned and reactive.”

The report concludes:

“Mr Stewart’s violent behaviour resulted in positive reinforcement including loyalty, status and a sense of worth.  His problematic cognitions and attitudes allowed him to justify acts of violence, and a level of moral disengagement allowed the behaviour to continue without experiencing guilt.”

It seems that there is much which can be done in this and other areas while you are in custody to try to address some of the factors that contributed to what you did and where you find yourself at the age of 19.

Today, Mr Findlay has emphasised that you played no direct physical role in the attack on Kayden Moy.

AB

The report in your case has been prepared with input from a number of social work and other professionals.

The report tells me that you still do not understand why you were found guilty. You too claim to have a poor recollection of events due to intoxication through the consumption of alcohol and ecstasy. You have offered the author of the report a sanitised version of events and omitted anything which happened in the aftermath.

It is said that you have demonstrated little or no remorse although, at least in part, this may be due to your age and inability to process what you did. You appear to have shown some victim empathy as well as concern for yourself and your own family. You have shown the beginnings of insight and reflection.

It is said that you “may benefit from psychological interventions to assist you [him] to better understand your [his] thoughts, emotions and behaviour during the events of the index offence.”

You too witnessed domestic abuse and had social work involvement out of concern for you. The report details adverse childhood experiences. You were placed on a compulsory supervision order in January 2025. A significant improvement in your education is reported since you were placed in secure care.

Physical and mental health issues are described and you may be assessed for ADHD, anxiety and PTSD.

The report states:

“Evidence demonstrates that cumulative ACEs can impair emotional regulation, decision-making, and impulse control, increasing vulnerability to risk-taking behaviours, association with antisocial peers, and offending.”, suggesting that your behaviours “may be better understood as adaptive responses to prolonged adversity rather than solely as deliberate misconduct”. Further support, assessments and interventions are indicated while you are in custody to build on the protective factors identified in the report. Specific areas of possible work are identified in the report. You will remain in the present establishment until you are 18 when you will be transferred to Polmont.

Today, Mr Duguid has emphasised that you played no direct physical role in the attack on Kayden Moy.

I have considered all that is said in the reports and all that has been said on your behalf by your counsel. They have said all that can be said.

I emphasise that being intoxicated or under the influence of drink and drugs, as you all seems to have been, is no excuse whatsoever. Those who commit crimes while intoxicated are just as responsible as a matter of law as those who are entirely sober.

The 3 of you travelled to Irvine armed and intent on reprisal for some slight hurt caused to someone associated with your group. 2 of you took weapons, including, in the case of Cole Turley, the knife with which Kayden Moy was stabbed and murdered. Kayden Moy’s death was pointless and unnecessary. Your victim could have been any one of the Himshie group but Kayden was the one who slipped and fell. After the attack, consistent with the jury’s verdict that you didn’t care whether Kayden Moy lived or died, you appeared to celebrate what you had done. Despite claims that intoxication has robbed you of any memory of what you did, with considerable presence of mind in the aftermath, you sought to conceal your involvement in this appalling crime in a manner also consistent with this having been a planned attack.

The sentence for murder is prescribed by law and is a life sentence.  

Cole Turley, you are 18 now and were 17 at the time of the murder.

Jay Stewart, you are 19 now and were 17 at the time of the murder.

AB, you are 15 now and were 14 at the time of the murder.

I accordingly have regard to the Guidelines for the Sentencing of Young People which are relevant in your case and which require me to have rehabilitation as a primary consideration given the capacity for change in young people.  They also states that, ‘The culpability of a young person will therefore generally be lower than that of an older person who is to be sentenced for the same, or a similar, offence.’

I bear in mind what is said in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Young Persons Guideline.

Paragraph 20 states:

‘However, the nature and duration of a sentence imposed on a young person should be different from that which might be imposed on an older person being sentenced for the same, or a similar, offence.’

Paragraph 21 states:

‘If a custodial sentence is imposed on a young person, it should be shorter than that which would have been imposed on an older person for the same, or a similar, offence.’

In the case of AB, I also have regard to the UNCRC as relevant to sentencing.

Your punishment parts are therefore less than they would have been had the Guidelines not applied although it is worth repeating something said by the Appeal Court 17 years ago:

“We agree that at the present time knife crime is a scourge in the Scottish community and that the court should be acting, and be seen to be acting, in a way which discourages the carrying of sharp weapons, the use of which may lead to needless deaths. Sentences which may cause individuals to think more carefully before arming themselves and which reflect public concern at such killings are appropriate.”

Today, knife crime remains a scourge in Scotland. This case suggests that there are young people who think it is normal and acceptable to go armed with weapons to deal with minor disputes between different groups. The court will continue to make clear that it is not. Care needs to be taken when it comes to the sentencing of young people but it is important that it is understood that there will be serious consequences for those who continue to carry and use knives.

Cole Turley, in the circumstances and as required by law, I sentence you to detention for life and specify a punishment part of 16 years.  Had it not been for your plea of guilty, the period would have been 18 years. That is a reduction of a little over 10% for your plea of guilty. Your sentence will commence in a young offenders institution.  The punishment part will run from 23 May 2025.  You should understand that this is not a sentence of 16 years detention.  16 years represents the minimum time you will have to serve before you can be considered for parole.  Whether, and if so, when, you are released will be a matter for the Parole Board to determine after that 16 year period and will be decided on the basis of the risk you are assessed to pose at that time.

Jay Stewart, in the circumstances and as required by law, I sentence you to detention for life and specify a punishment part of 16 years which includes 6 months for breach of bail.  Your sentence will commence in a young offenders institution.  The punishment part will run from 20 May 2025.  You should understand that this is not a sentence of 16 years detention.  16 years represents the minimum time you will have to serve before you can be considered for parole.  Whether, and if so, when, you are released will be a matter for the Parole Board to determine after that 16 year period and will be decided on the basis of the risk you are assessed to pose at that time.

AB, in the circumstances and as required by law, I sentence you to detention without limit of time in such place as Scottish Ministers may direct and specify a punishment part of 14 years. The punishment part will run from 5 June 2025.  You should understand that this is not a sentence of 14 years detention.  14 years represents the minimum time you will have to serve before you can be considered for parole.  Whether, and if so, when, you are released will be a matter for the Parole Board to determine after that 14 year period and will be decided on the basis of the risk you are assessed to pose at that time.”

21 July 2026