Prosecutor urges jury to convict teens of murdering Amen Teklay

A prosecutor has urged a jury to convict two teenagers of murdering 15-year-old Amen Teklay.

Adrian Stalker gave his closing speech at the High Court in Glasgow at the trial of the 16 and 17-year-old boys.

The teenagers are accused of assaulting Amen in the St George’s Cross area of Glasgow on March 5, 2025.

Prosecutors claim the boys – who cannot be identified due to their age – brandished a sword and frying pan at Amen while both masked.

It is said Amen – who lived in the city with his father, but was originally from Eritrea – was chased.

The charge states that he was struck with the sword and left so severely hurt that he died on Clarendon Street.

A special defence of self-defence has been lodged by the 16-year-old boy on trial.

16-year-old claims he stabbed Amen in self-defence

Mr Stalker told the jury: “It is accepted that (the 16-year-old) killed Amen Teklay. He accepts that in his evidence.”

Mr Stalker disputed that the 16-year-old acted in self-defence and that it was a “murderous assault”.

Jurors were told by Mr Stalker that “it doesn’t really matter how it all started”.

The advocate said: “What matters is by the time we get to March 5, there is a violent feud between (the 16-year-old) and Amen Teklay.

“We heard evidence that the feud escalated up to March 5.”

Mr Stalker referred to footage shown to jurors of Amen being attacked by the 16-year-old and two other youths not on trial in February 2025.

The advocate called it a “frenzied sustained assault” which was broken up by members of the public.

Mr Stalker went on to mention another incident outside the Lismore bar in Partick.

He said: “Three days before Amen Teklay is killed, (the 16-year-old) ran along the road chasing him with the sword that he ultimately used to kill Amen Teklay.”

From footage later that night, the 16-year-old was seen being chased by Amen near the boy on trial’s home.

Mr Stalker referred to messages from that night allegedly sent by the 16-year-old which included “let’s get a whip and kill these man”.

The advocate then spoke about the night of the murder in which he claimed there was a discrepancy between the two teenagers’ evidence.

Jurors heard that the 16-year-old was informed Amen was in the Maryhill area looking for him and another 16-year-old who is not on trial. It was also stated that Amen was armed.

Mr Stalker told jurors the 16-year-old on trial stated that he told his friends including the 17-year-old on trial to “look out for Amen”. Meantime, the advocate claimed the 17-year-old on trial said that the 16-year-old told him “let’s go look for him”.

‘Clear accused went looking for Amen’

Mr Stalker said: “It is clear they went looking for him. (The 17-year-old) knew they were looking for him and (the 16-year-old) was armed with a sword.

“He saw the sword before and knew what type of weapon it was. He also knew there was a recent incident in which they squared up to each other with the swords.”

The advocate also asked why the 17-year-old did not go home or stay with the 16-year-old if he was “concerned” about an attack.

Mr Stalker then referenced the attack itself which in agreed evidence said that it required “moderate force” to go through Amen’s body which included through the heart.

He said: “This shows an intent to kill or a wicked recklessness if he died.

“(The 16-year-old) said that he did not aim. Is that plausible? He said that Amen was close to him.

“Do you think when he stabbed Amen, he didn’t know where he was stabbing and not know where he was going for?”

The advocate also highlighted the evidence of an eyewitness who claimed that Amen was “backing away”.

Mr Stalker said: “At this point, I suggest that you can conclude that (the 16-year-old) could have stopped and this would not have happened.”

With regard to the 17-year-old, Mr Stalker said that he “must have realised there was a strong risk he would be getting involved in an encounter where someone could be seriously hurt and still chose to do it”.

The advocate told jurors that after the incident, the 16-year-old went on to: “Not seek help, ran away, took his trousers off thinking there was blood on them and throws them away.

“He disposed the knife and police can’t find it, ran in his house in a panic and ran back out again.”

He said: “Ask yourself if this is the actions of a person innocent and acting in self-defence or the actions of someone committing a murder?”

Mr Stalker also referenced the 16-year-old searching terms such as “stabbing murder charge sentence UK 14 years old” and “can you get away with self-defence in Glasgow in a knife fight”.

The advocate later stated that it would be “speculation” that Amen would have killed the 16-year-old “if given the chance”. He added: “We don’t know that.”

In closing, Mr Stalker said: “For these reasons I ask you to convict both accused of murder.”

‘Teklay was author of own misfortune’

Brian McConnachie KC, defending the 16-year-old, told jurors on his closing speech: “In my submission Amen Teklay was the author of his own misfortune.”

The advocate claimed that Amen was “not an ordinary 15-year-old”, stating that he was “resourceful” with access to “a car, a driver”.

Mr McConnachie also stated that his client on trial “is not a misunderstood angel”.

The advocate claimed that the 16-year-old on trial “is a boy who talks the talk and doesn’t walk the walk”.

Mr McConnachie said that on the night of the murder, Amen was “seeking out” the 16-year-old. It was stated that Amen’s phone had evidence of him looking up football pitches where the 16-year-old had been that night.

The advocate added: “It is abundantly clear Amen was looking for them.”

Mr McConnachie said: “Whatever this was, it was not murder. It was self-defence and no crime was committed at all or alternatively it is what we call culpable homicide by virtue of provocation.”

He added: “He was under attack, there was no sensible option. He can’t leave the boy with no such skin in the game. What he does, irrespective that it caused death, it was no more than necessary.”

With regards to his client’s actions after the incident, Mr McConnachie stated: “He was clearly panicked. It is not difficult to understand how panicked he was.”

The advocate called him a “frightened young boy”.

The trial continues on Friday where the 17-year-old’s defence counsel Iain McSporran KC will speak to the jury before the judge gives his directions.