Image source, Family

Yesterday, a victim impact statement was read out on behalf of Shawn Seesahai's family, who are in Anguilla.

They described the 19-year-old as a "very loving child" who was helpful, hard-working, humble, confident, honest, and brave.

They said: "Mentally, it has been hard for any of us to function normally. None of us have had an unbroken night’s sleep since Shawn was taken from us.

"Every time I close my eyes, all I can think about are what his last moments were and how scared he must have been. It continually breaks my heart."

The family said they had used their life savings to repatriate the teenager's body and had taken out a loan to attend the trial earlier this year.

Image source, Family

The sentencing is about to resume at Nottingham Crown Court.

We'll be giving you the latest updates as two 13-year-olds described by prosecutors as "the youngest knife murderers" are sentenced for the killing of 19-year-old Shawn Seesahai.

The boys were 12 at the time of the murder and are the youngest convicted murderers since the killers of James Bulger.

The sentencing has been adjourned until tomorrow and our coverage is now pausing for the day.

This live page will resume tomorrow at 11:00 BST.

Image source, Family

The sentencing has now been adjourned for the day and will continue at Nottingham Crown Court tomorrow at about 11:00 BST.

Today we heard a statement from Shawn Seesahai's family, read out by Dorothea Hodge, the UK representative of the government of Anguilla.

We also heard from the defence counsels for the two boys, who spoke of the pair's backgrounds and rehabilitation prospects.

Tomorrow, Mrs Justice Tipples will hand out the sentences to the two boys, which will be televised, so the boys will be referred to only as “the first defendant” and “the second defendant”.

Image source, West Midlands Police

An application to lift the restriction preventing the two boys who killed Shawn Seesahai from being named was brought by media organisations ITN, NewsCorp and Associated Newspapers, who argued that identifying the boys was in the public interest.

Nottingham Crown Court heard that it was a "particularly grave" crime, which had led to "national revulsion".

It was also claimed that there was evidence of institutional failings, which the media would be less able to investigate and expose if the boys' identities were not made public.

However, Mrs Justice Tipples said details of the case had been widely reported and debated, and that the absence of the boys' names would not "leave a vacuum" in the way the case could be covered.

During the hearing, the court heard from defence barrister Paul Lewis KC, who represented the second of the two boys. Here is a summary of what he said:

• He spoke about how the defendants both blamed each other throughout the trial, while Mrs Justice Tipple referred to the conflicting evidence as to who wielded the weapon
• Mr Lewis KC said it was the other boy who took the knife out, who "habitually carried one" and who was involved in "any initial confrontation at the bench" in the park, where Mr Seesahai was attacked
• Speaking of his client's background, he said his behaviour at school had “not been an issue” and he was once awarded student of the year
• Mr Lewis described the boy’s prospects of rehabilitation as “excellent”, adding that there had not been any previous trouble and no contact with children’s services

Here is a summary of what defence counsel Rachel Brand KC said about the first of the two 13-year-old boys:

• The crime was not premeditated, despite the fact he took the machete to the scene
• This is a child who is immature for his age who lacked foresight of the consequences of his actions
• He is a vulnerable child who had been groomed, exploited and trafficked by men in the wider community, who encouraged him towards criminality and possession of knives
• Social services had been in his life since he was a baby
• His grandmother did "her very best" in raising him, but was just one person dealing with her own health issues and worked most of the time to provide for them
• He is making "very positive progress" at a secure unit, developing trusting relationships with staff
• There can be optimism that his behaviour can be turned around

The hearing has now finished for the day.

The judge will sentence the boys tomorrow morning.

Phil Mackie

The submissions by both Rachel Brand KC and Paul Lewis KC have gone on for more than 45 minutes.

Because of their ages, sessions are not supposed to go on any longer, but Mrs Justice Tipples asked both boys if they were happy to continue, and they both said yes.

Mr Lewis said that in his client’s case “prospects of rehabilitation are excellent”.

He said he had a good family background and there had never been any previous trouble and had had no contact with children’s services.

Paul Lewis KC mentioned the boy had an "unfortunate" history, in terms of his upbringing, but did not go into further detail.

But despite this, he said the boy's behaviour at school had "not been an issue".

He added that he had once been awarded student of the year, despite the disruption he faced.

Paul Lewis KC, who is defending the other 13-year-old boy, is now addressing the judge.

He said the defendants blamed each other throughout the trial.

Mrs Justice Tipples told the defence counsel that there was conflicting evidence throughout the trial as to who wielded the murder weapon.

Mr Lewis added that while they could not be sure who wielded the knife, the attack could not and would not have happened without the involvement of the other boy.

He said it was the other boy who took the knife out, who "habitually carried one", and who was involved in "any initial confrontation at the bench" in the park.

Ms Brand KC said one of the boys had been looked after by his grandma.

She said the grandma "did her best" despite having health issues and working a job to provide for him and the family.

Phil Mackie

We are learning more about the boys who murdered Shawn Seesahai.

Rachel Brand KC, who represents the 13-year-old who owned the machete, has said he was “clearly vulnerable” and had been “groomed, exploited and trafficked by older boys” who encouraged his interest in knives.

She has also revealed that boy had been known to children’s services since he was very young.

A multi-agency safeguarding report is being carried out and will be published later this year.

She went on to say that the child, who is now 13, is making “good progress” at the secure unit where he’s being held, and told Mrs Justice Tipples “there can be optimism that his behaviour can be turned round.”

Rachel Brand KC said that the boy that she was representing was a vulnerable child, and "remains a vulnerable child for a number of reasons".

She said the boy, now 13, had been "groomed, exploited and trafficked" by men in the wider community, who encouraged him to possess knives.

The defence counsel also said he would be found late at night with no explanation of how he got there or how he would get back home.

Rachel Brand KC, who is representing one of the boys, said that sentencing was "not designed" or would "ever attempt" to cure problems in society that have led to the prevalence of knife crime.

“You are dealing with an individual child,” she tells the judge.

Defending one of the boys, Rachel Brand KC said that the court was dealing with a child who was immature, according to a doctor involved with the case.

"Even when his chronological age is taken into account, he’s immature taking into account others of the same chronological age," she said.

"He lacked as a child foresight of the consequences of his actions.

"He lacked as a child the ability to regulate his behaviour in the same way that adults do."

The hearing has resumed and Rachel Brand KC, defending, has started to address the court.

"Anyone reading reports of this case, who is not familiar with the evidence, should keep in mind that this crime was not premeditated," she said.

Mrs Justice Tipples has called a short adjournment to proceedings and the boys have been sent back out of the courtroom.

Prosecutor Michelle Heeley KC has told the judge that one of the two boys convicted of the murder had "experienced significant trauma in his life".

She said he had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and had also been at risk of child criminal exploitation.

The prosecutor said he regularly carried knives and that there was offending from family members.

The other boy is said to have denied the offence but expressed remorse for what happened.

She said he did not have the same welfare issues as the other boy and had expressed "maturity beyond his years in custody."

The statement from the family has finished and the hearing turns to discussion of the sentencing guidelines.

In her representations to the judge, Michelle Heeley KC, prosecuting, said the boys were "the youngest knife murderers, I am afraid, and there is little precedent."