Group was ‘armed to the teeth’ looking for revenge when boys murdered, jury told

Five people went out in a car “armed to the teeth” looking for revenge after a house was damaged, and murdered two teenagers in a case of mistaken identity, a jury has been told.

Mason Rist, 15, and Max Dixon, 16, suffered fatal stab wounds when they were attacked by four teenagers in the Knowle West area of Bristol in January this year.

The two boys, who were close friends, had been wrongly identified as being responsible for bricks being thrown at a house in the neighbouring Hartcliffe district earlier that evening, Bristol Crown Court heard.

Antony Snook, 45, Riley Tolliver, 18, and three boys aged 15, 16, and 17, who cannot be named because of their age, are on trial charged with murdering Max and Mason.

Ray Tully KC, prosecuting, told the jury in his closing speech that it is the Crown’s case the murders were carried out by the five defendants as part of a “joint enterprise”.

“We say at the end of the case, having heard all of the evidence, that evidence demonstrates that each of the five defendants in the dock is guilty of the murder of both Max and Mason,” he said.

“There is a glue that links them together and involves all of the individual defendants on the night.

“There are brought together by the desire for revenge that arose from what they all knew had happened that evening at the property in Hartcliffe.

“Each of these four boys are armed. Max and Mason are the focus of their attention and are equal targets for the four.

“None of that is surprising because it is a direct response to what happened earlier.

“If there is going to be revenge or retaliation it is going to be against the group who they think is responsible for the attack on that house.”

Mr Tully said the four younger defendants were all armed, while Snook was the driver who took them to and from the scene of the attack in Ilminster Avenue on January 27.

“They intended as a group, we suggest, that both boys should be caused really serious injury. Why else would they be taking weapons?” he asked.

“It is joint decision to support each other. Each has each other’s back.

“They have a getaway driver with the engine running, moving his way down the road, enabling them to get away quickly.

“They had a shared common goal and that was to attack both boys with the weapons they brought with them to at the very least cause them really serious harm.”

Mr Tully suggested the jury may be hearing from those representing the defendants that the intention was to “frighten the daylights out of them”.

But he said this could be rejected because some of the defendants could be seen on CCTV approaching Max and Mason with their weapons hidden behind their backs.

“Why would they hide the weapon behind their back if it was to frighten them?” he asked.

“They kept the weapons out of sight until the last moment, and that tells you something about the intentions of those defendants.

“The joint aim was revenge, and that revenge would mean the use of serious violence.”

Snook has previously told the jury that accusations he was part of a revenge mission were “utter rubbish” and that he thought he was driving his four co-accused to a safe house following the earlier attack and did not know any of them was armed.

Mr Tully described Snook’s account to the jury as “little more than pure fiction”.

“When you pull apart the threads it very quickly unravels,” he said.

“He drove a carful of teenagers armed to the teeth to Knowle West. They are sharking around for targets.”

A CCTV camera on Mason’s house captured the attack which lasted just 33 seconds – including Snook’s Audi stopping, four teenagers allegedly jumping out, attacking the two friends, returning to the car and it driving off.

Mason and Max suffered serious stabbing injuries and both died in hospital in the early hours of January 28.

Earlier, trial judge Mrs Justice May told the jurors in legal directions that they must consider the case against each defendant separately on each of the counts.

As well as murder, the jury can return alternative verdicts of manslaughter.

Mrs Justice May said that, in the law of joint enterprise, it is possible for someone to be guilty of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal injuries themselves, as long as the prosecution could make the jury certain that they had encouraged or assisted those who did.

“The prosecution must show that the acts of assistance and encouragement took place before or during the attack,” she said.

“The prosecution case is that this is a joint attack, each of the defendants participated by encouraging, assisting or participating in the attack.”

The 15-year-old boy on trial has admitted murdering Mason but denies murdering Max.

The 17-year-old has admitted manslaughter relating to Max but denies murdering Max and Mason.

Snook, Tolliver, the 16-year-old boy and the 17-year-old are charged with murdering Mason, together with the 15-year-old boy, on January 27 this year.

Snook, Tolliver and the three teenage boys are charged with murdering Max on the same date.

The trial continues.