Jacob Thomas went on to attack a group of 11-year-old schoolboys the day after he battered the teenager and threatened to slash his face
20:08, 11 Jul 2025Updated 20:14, 11 Jul 2025
Jacob Thomas outside Liverpool Crown Court(Image: Liverpool Echo)
A thug battered a 13-year-old boy at McDonald’s then bundled him into his car while seeking “retribution” for a stone being thrown at his windscreen. Jacob Thomas imprisoned the terrified teenager in his vehicle and drove him around the streets for around 10 minutes before finally setting him free, having threatened to “slash his face”, “bonnet him” and “slit his throat”.
The 24-year-old, labelled a “stupid young man” by his own barrister, then went on to attack another group of schoolboys the following day, again in the misguided belief that they had damaged his car. This time he attempted to drag the wholly innocent 11-year-olds into a park by their collars, leaving them asking: “Why did you do this to me?”
Liverpool Crown Court heard this afternoon, Friday, that a 13-year-old was walking near to McDonald’s in Belle Vale on the evening of November 17 last year when Thomas pulled alongside him and his friends in his vehicle and shouted: “Who’s thrown something? I’ll slash your faces.”
Damian Nolan, prosecuting, described how the youngsters denied being responsible for damaging the car, which had apparently had its windscreen smashed by a stone. But Thomas, formerly of Garway in Woolton, responded by running towards the group and grabbing hold of the teen by his neck.
The victim’s friends fled in terror as a result, leaving only him and a 13-year-old behind. The boy was then pushed into a set of railings before his assailant got back into his vehicle shouting: “If I see you and your mates again, you’ll get bonneted.”
Having briefly driven away and parked on nearby Childwall Valley Road, Thomas thereafter accosted the complainant again at the entrance to McDonald’s and twice punched him to the face. He subsequently began dragging the youngster away as he desperately attempted to cling to the railings while his friend attempted to intervene.
But the older man was able to bundle the boy into his car and drove away towards the nearby Morrisons supermarket. At one stage during this ordeal, Thomas was said to have stopped his car upon spotting police officers near to a Bargain Booze store and told him: “Stay there. Don’t do anything stupid.”
After around 10 minutes, the boy was driven back to the same McDonald’s and set free after being warned: “If I catch you, I’ll slit your throat open. If I catch your mates, it’ll be worse.”
At around 6pm the following day, November 18 2024, a group of four 11-year-old boys left Belle Vale Park and noticed Thomas’ car park on Childwall Valley Road. He then shouted over to the youngsters: “What have yous f***ing done to my car.”
Described as being “very aggressive” and with “clenched fists”, the defendant grabbed one of the children by his jacket collar and pushed him into a wall while shouting “I’m going to batter you all if you don’t tell me who done it”. Thomas thereafter attempted to trip one of the boys up as he fled before grabbing hold of the other three by their collars and dragging them across the main road, telling them that he was taking them into the park to “f***ing batter them all”.
When one of the youngsters stated that his dad was on his way to pick them up, he went on to add that he was “batter his dad as well”. However, he ultimately drove away when the father arrived at the scene.
In a statement which was read out to the court on his behalf, one of the boys said: “Why did you do this to me? You’ve ruined my life.”
Thomas, who has no previous convictions, was later identified as being the attacker in both incidents as a result of a “distinctive tattoo” on his left hand. Daniel Travers, defending, told the court: “He recognises that he made very poor decisions on both days.”
Of the second incident, Thomas’ counsel said: “He believed that he recognised two of the lads as being part of the group. I think he realised that they were younger. I think that he realised himself that he was mistaken in his belief.
“It is relevant that there was an incident that triggered the defendant’s behaviour, and he had a genuine belief, albeit no reasonable belief, in relation to the first incident that the young man was involved. He is relatively young and was, I am afraid, quite a stupid young man on that occasion.
“He was trying to frighten them. It seems relatively clear to me that this was not a deliberate course of action intended to cause serious harm. This was intended to scare them, no doubt, in his mind, to punish them for what he believed they had done to him. Whatever physical contact there was, it must have been minimal to leave no physical injury.
“Prior to this incident, he had a difficult experience with his ex-partner. He suffered trauma as a child. Your honour will have read about the loss of his father.
“As a direct consequence of this offence, it was suggested to him that it would be sensible to move out of the area. He is in a relationship with a young woman who is pregnant and is due in December. It is his intention to remain in the Wigan area and, if he were fortunate to escape immediate custody today, to set up home with his partner and plan for their child.
“He has previously always been employed. He obtained qualifications. He did have aspirations to join the army, but those have now passed. He has got a supportive mother and family here in court. His mother works as a nurse. He has been brought up to understand the value of work.
“At the moment, he is in receipt of Universal Credit and has been signed off sick due to mental health reasons and, I think, the stress of these proceedings. He is absolutely petrified of going into custody. He does not think that he would cope.
“He behaved appallingly on these two days, but he is, in my submission, a young man who is unlikely to come back before the court. I hope that he would be able to prove himself to the court, as well as to his current partner and their future child.”
Thomas admitted false imprisonment and affray. He was handed a two-year imprisonment suspended for two years with 250 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 15 days, as well as being given a seven-year restraining order.
Jacob Thomas outside Liverpool Crown Court(Image: Liverpool Echo)
Judge David Aubrey KC said that there was “no evidence” that any of the victims had been responsible for causing the damage to his car, adding in his sentencing remarks: “There was absolutely no justification or excuse for that which you did on the 17th of November, and indeed the following day. What you did was to seek to take the law into your own hands and seek your own retribution in consequence of your belief that the person who you confronted, and indeed imprisoned, had been responsible for antisocial behaviour directed towards you.
“The court accepts that you may well have been in a highly emotionally charged state and that you perceived that you had been wronged, and you were labouring under a sense of grievance. But, as I have said, there was no justification for what you then did. What concerns the court is the fact that, overnight, you had not come to your senses. You terrified a number of young children.”
Of the first incident, Judge Aubrey said: “He does not appear to have suffered any physical injuries, but you dragged him into your car and, for a period of about 10 minutes, he was imprisoned by you, anxious and scared, wondering what would happen next. Then, on the 18th of November, not withstanding the fact that you had every opportunity to reflect upon your behaviour, in no way whatsoever had you moderated your behaviour.
“So it is that these offences are extremely serious. You suffered trauma as a child. Your previous relationship had broken up. Your previous partner had a miscarriage, and then the straw that broke the camel’s back was someone throwing a stone at your vehicle and smashing the windscreen.
“You are now in a relationship with another woman, who, I understand, is due to give birth shortly. As a result of these matters, you have now moved away from the area and are living many miles from the area. I also treat you as a young man of previous good character.
“In the circumstances of your case, I am satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. I am satisfied that you can put these matters behind you. I am satisfied that you are capable of moderating your behaviour.
“Due to the personal mitigation that has been placed before this court, the court has come to the conclusion, just, and only just, that it is possible to suspend that sentence of two years. If you do breach that order, your feet will not touch the ground. Do you understand?”
Appearing in the dock wearing a black suit over a white shirt and black tie, Thomas replied: “Yes. Thank you.”