Luis Guembes case latest: Stabbing victim 'targeted over £40 phone debt'

A teenager accused of murdering 15-year-old Luis Guembes allegedly planned to take his phone to recover a £40 debt, a jury has heard.

Two teenage witnesses gave evidence at Guildford Crown Court on Friday, October 23, the fifth day of the trial of two boys accused of murdering the Farnham schoolboy.

The court heard allegations about a planned confrontation over a damaged phone, along with separate claims that one of the defendants had previously possessed knives.

Both defendants, now aged 16, deny murder. Neither can be identified for legal reasons.

The first witness, giving evidence by video link, told the jury he was close friends with defendant two, describing him as one of his “best mates”.

Questioned by prosecutor Tom Doble about a police interview conducted shortly after Luis died, he recalled a conversation with defendant two on Friday, January 16.

He said defendant two had asked him to accompany him to take a phone from Luis to recover money owed for a damaged device.

The witness told the court defendant two wanted other people present in case a fight broke out.

Asked what defendant two intended to do, he replied: “He said he wanted to take his phone. I did not know what was gonna happen afterwards.”

He recalled defendant two saying: “I’ll jump him if he doesn't give the phone up.”

The witness also remembered defendant two making a comment about “staining” Luis, which he understood to mean stabbing someone with a knife.

However, he described the remark as a joke and said there had been no aggression behind it.

During questioning, it was also established that the term “stain” could refer to robbing someone.

The witness said defendant two had not specified an exact date for the proposed confrontation, although he understood it was being discussed for that weekend.

He told the jury he had refused to become involved and did not go because he had other plans.

The court heard that defendant two wanted £40 to cover the cost of a damaged phone. The witness said that, as far as he knew, the money had not been repaid.

Under questioning by defence barrister Tim Forte KC, the witness said he had known defendant two for several years and had become closer friends with him over the previous three years.

Asked whether he had ever seen defendant two carrying a knife during that time, he replied: “No, never.”

The witness was also questioned about an incident in November or December 2024, when he claimed defendant one had shown him and another friend a dagger in a garage.

He described the object as having a black handle, a blunt, square-shaped end and curved features on either side. He estimated its overall length at approximately 20cm.

He also claimed to have seen the same knife on an earlier occasion.

The jury was shown a drawing he had made for police, depicting a knife with an estimated 15cm blade.

Rodrick Johnson KC, representing defendant one, challenged the accuracy of the witness's recollection.

He suggested the witness might have been mistaken about seeing the knife in the garage and questioned his claim to have personally seen defendant one with the weapon on the earlier occasion.

The witness rejected the suggestion, insisting: “No, I’m not wrong. I’m 100% sure.”

Mr Johnson pointed out that the witness's earlier police interview and written statement referred to him being aware that defendant one had brought a knife into school, rather than explicitly saying he had witnessed it.

The witness maintained that he had seen the knife himself.

He also denied confusing defendant one with another pupil who had allegedly brought the same object into school.

The jury then heard from a second teenage witness, who described an alleged encounter with defendant one at a McDonald's restaurant in Guildford during the winter of 2024.

Questioned by Mr Doble, he said he had known defendant one since around Halloween 2024 through mutual friends.

He recalled seeing defendant one sitting near the toilets on the restaurant's upper floor.

The witness claimed he noticed what appeared to be a bladed article protruding from the right side of defendant one's waistband.

He described seeing something sharp and a greyish handle that looked “medieval”, resembling the handle of a dagger.

However, he acknowledged that he had not seen the blade itself and could not estimate the handle's length.

He initially told the court he had seen the object for approximately a minute, with nothing obstructing his view.

The witness also described two videos he claimed to have received through Snapchat from defendant one around the summer of 2025.

He said one showed several knives hidden in a bedroom, while other footage appeared to show defendant one handling bladed articles.

These included what he believed was the same knife he had seen at McDonald's, along with another pocket knife.

He also recalled seeing a flick knife but could not remember its precise appearance.

Under cross-examination, Mr Johnson challenged inconsistencies between the witness's evidence in court and his earlier statement.

The barrister pointed out that the statement described the witness seeing the object for approximately five seconds while walking past.

That differed from his evidence to the jury that he had seen it for about a minute and had sat down near the toilets.

The witness maintained that both accounts were correct.

He said he had been frightened by what he saw and had left McDonald's because he did not want to become involved.

Mr Johnson also questioned whether the witness could be certain the object was a knife when he had not seen its blade.

The witness insisted he was certain it was a bladed article, explaining that he had subsequently recognised the handle in footage he claimed to have received.

Mr Johnson suggested he might have mistaken the object or confused the restaurant incident with footage of defendant one holding a knife.

He also challenged whether the videos had been sent directly by defendant one or forwarded by somebody else.

The witness rejected the suggestion, maintaining that the footage had come through defendant one's Snapchat account.

The trial continues on Monday.