Hassan Sentamu: ‘Top Boy-Inspired’ Teen Accused of Fatally Stabbing Elianne Andam in Croydon Over ‘Disrespect’ Claims – Shocking Testimonies Unveiled in Dramatic Old Bailey Trial

Hi and Welcome to this video Production News Court Report.

The fatal stabbing of 15-year-old Elianne Andam on the morning of September 27, 2023, outside the Whitgift shopping centre in Croydon, South London, has culminated in a trial that seeks to unravel the tragic events of that day.

At the centre of the case is

18-year-old Hassan Sentamu, who admits to the killing but denies murder, arguing instead for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility due to his autism diagnosis. What began as a seemingly routine exchange of possessions between Sentamu and his ex-girlfriend turned into a fatal confrontation that left a young life extinguished.

The timeline of events, now pieced together through evidence and testimony presented in court, began earlier that morning with an

arrangement made between Sentamu and his ex-girlfriend, who cannot be identified for legal reasons.

The meeting was set up to exchange items that had belonged to one another during their brief relationship, which ended 10 days prior. Among the possessions at issue was a treasured teddy bear belonging to Sentamu's ex-girlfriend, which he failed to bring to the meeting.

Sentamu arrived at the Whitgift shopping centre wearing black gloves and a blue face mask, an appearance that his ex-girlfriend later likened to the demeanor of a character from the Netflix crime drama Top Boy.

The prosecution argues this choice of attire was calculated, signaling his intent to intimidate and potentially escalate the situation. The situation began to unravel when Sentamu, instead of returning the teddy bear and other items, appeared to mock his ex-girlfriend, dismissing her repeated requests for her possessions.

As tensions escalated, Elianne Andam-who had accompanied her friend to provide support-attempted to diffuse the situation with light-hearted humour.

Acting on impulse, she grabbed a Tesco carrier bag containing some of Sentamu's clothing and began running, laughing as she did so.

This seemingly innocuous act triggered what the prosecution described as

"White-Hot Anger" in Sentamu. CCTV footage shows him lifting his hoodie, producing a large kitchen knife, and pursuing Elianne. Eyewitnesses recount a harrowing scene as Sentamu caught up to Elianne and stabbed her repeatedly. Despite her attempts to shield herself and her desperate pleas for him to stop, Sentamu continued the attack until she collapsed to the ground.

The assault was witnessed by horrified bystanders, including commuters at a nearby bus stop, who described shouting and chaos as Elianne lay fatally wounded. First responders, including police officers and members of the public, attempted to save her life, but despite their efforts, she was pronounced dead at the scene at 9:21 a.m.

After the attack, Sentamu fled the scene, discarding the knife in a residential area on Cedar Road before boarding a number 64 bus towards his home in New Addington. Within 90 minutes, he was apprehended by police. When confronted by PC Peter Nolan, Sentamu initially gave a false name, claiming to be "John," but was quickly identified through his Oyster card. Officers noted what appeared to be a smear of blood on his hand, and Sentamu was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm. The charge was later upgraded to murder after confirmation of Elianne's death.

The subsequent investigation has revealed troubling details about Sentamu's state of mind and the dynamics of his prior relationship. His ex-girlfriend testified to a history of controlling and angry behavior, while forensic evidence and CCTV footage have provided a chilling account of the attack. As the trial continues, the court is now tasked with determining whether Sentamu's actions amounted to premeditated murder or if his claim of diminished responsibility holds weight.

The prosecution has built its case around witness statements, police testimony, and CCTV footage, painting a detailed picture of the moments leading up to and following the fatal stabbing of Elianne Andam. Central to the case are the statements from the key witness, Sentamu’s ex-girlfriend, who cannot be named for legal reasons. Her testimony has provided a crucial account of the events and Sentamu’s demeanor during the confrontation.

In her video-recorded police interview, played to the court, the ex-girlfriend described the unsettling behavior Sentamu exhibited on the morning of September 27. She recounted how he arrived at their pre-arranged meeting outside the Whitgift shopping centre wearing black gloves and a mask, attire she found highly unusual given the mild weather. She testified that his appearance reminded her of characters from Top Boy, the Netflix crime drama, often seen preparing for violence in a similar manner. Her testimony highlighted her growing unease, stating: “I thought he was gonna hit me. I thought that he had something on him.”

She went on to detail the initial dispute over the return of her belongings, particularly a teddy bear she had given to Sentamu during their relationship. When Sentamu refused to hand it over, tensions rose. According to her account, Sentamu mocked her by looking her up and down with disdain and dismissively rolling his eyes. She said his response to her request for her possessions, “I don’t want to hurt you,” was chilling, delivered not as a reassurance but as a veiled warning.

Elianne Andam’s role in the incident was also brought into focus during the testimony. The ex-girlfriend described how Elianne, in an attempt to defuse the tense situation, grabbed a Tesco bag containing some of Sentamu’s clothes as a joke. While initially light-hearted, the act quickly escalated into tragedy. Sentamu’s reaction was immediate and violent. “Hassan got mad,” the ex-girlfriend recounted.

As Sentamu chased Elianne, the ex-girlfriend described witnessing the attack. She told the police how Sentamu lifted his hoodie to produce a large kitchen knife, which he used to stab Elianne multiple times. She vividly recalled Elianne falling to the ground, trying to shield herself and repeatedly pleading for him to stop. “I just saw Elianne on the floor, backing up with her hand out saying, ‘Stop, stop, stop,’” she said, her voice trembling in the recording.

Statements from police officers who arrived at the scene added further weight to the prosecution’s case. PC Alex Smith described encountering “a scene of chaos” outside the Whitgift shopping centre, with people screaming and running away. Upon locating Elianne, he found her unresponsive and immediately began chest compressions in an attempt to save her life. PC Ben Carter, who arrived shortly after, used a bandage to apply pressure to a neck wound. Both officers described their efforts as desperate but ultimately futile, with Elianne pronounced dead at the scene at 9:21 a.m.

PC Peter Nolan, the officer who detained Sentamu, also gave evidence, describing the moment he stopped a number 64 bus near New Addington after hearing a description of the suspect. Initially, Sentamu gave a false name, claiming to be “John,” but handed over his Oyster card, which revealed his true identity. PC Nolan recalled noticing what appeared to be a smear of blood on Sentamu’s thumb and taking measures to preserve forensic evidence by placing evidence bags over his hands. Sentamu’s reaction was described as calm but evasive, asking the officer, “Why?” when told to place his hands behind his back.

CCTV footage presented in court captured the sequence of events, from the initial confrontation to the attack and Sentamu’s subsequent flight from the scene. Jurors also viewed body-worn camera footage from PC Nolan, showing the moment of Sentamu’s arrest.

The court has also heard from the prosecution’s lead, Alex Chalk KC, who argued that Sentamu’s actions were not only deliberate but calculated, escalating from verbal mockery to lethal violence within moments. The prosecution emphasized that Sentamu carried the knife with him that morning, undermining any claim that his actions were impulsive or unplanned.

In contrast, the defense has begun presenting its argument that Sentamu’s autism significantly impacted his ability to manage the situation.

They argue that his heightened emotional response to what he perceived as provocation led to a loss of control. Sentamu himself claims he carried the knife for lawful reasons, although this assertion remains contested.

The ex-girlfriend’s testimony, police accounts, and video evidence provide a grim reconstruction of the attack, presenting a compelling narrative for the jury to consider. As the case unfolds, these testimonies and statements will remain pivotal in determining whether Sentamu’s actions constitute murder or whether his defense of diminished responsibility will hold sway.

As the trial advances, the defense has sought to contextualize Hassan Sentamu’s actions within the framework of his autism diagnosis, arguing that his condition played a significant role in shaping his response to the confrontation. However, the prosecution has countered this argument by presenting a broader narrative, suggesting that Sentamu’s actions were not merely a loss of control but also rooted in a sense of personal grievance and a desire to restore his perceived status.

Key to the prosecution’s case is the assertion that the attack was motivated by Sentamu feeling disrespected by both his ex-girlfriend and Elianne Andam. This alleged sense of humiliation stemmed from an incident the day before the fatal stabbing, in which the two girls reportedly threw water on Sentamu during an argument. Prosecutors revealed that Sentamu later confided in a friend, stating, “I can’t let this slide,” an ominous remark that they argue demonstrates premeditation.

This evidence, the prosecution contends, reveals that the altercation on September 27 was not an isolated, heat-of-the-moment response but the culmination of unresolved anger and a desire for retribution. It paints a picture of Sentamu deliberately escalating the confrontation by arriving at the meeting with gloves, a mask, and a concealed knife—items the prosecution claims are consistent with a calculated plan.

The defense, however, has worked to shift focus onto Sentamu’s autism, arguing that his neurological condition heightened his emotional response to what he perceived as provocation. They assert that the stress of the previous day’s events, combined with his ex-girlfriend’s refusal to reconcile and Elianne’s playful attempt to grab his bag, triggered a sensory and emotional overload. Sentamu’s reaction, they argue, was not one of calculated malice but of an autistic individual unable to regulate his emotions in a moment of extreme pressure.

The issue of the knife remains central to both sides. The prosecution has pointed to Sentamu’s deliberate concealment of the weapon under his hoodie as evidence of his intent to use it. They argue that this was not a coincidence but a conscious decision to bring a deadly weapon into a potentially volatile situation. The defense has countered by claiming that Sentamu carried the knife for a “lawful reason,” though they have yet to convincingly establish what that reason was.

In examining Sentamu’s mindset, the prosecution has relied heavily on the testimony of his ex-girlfriend, who described his demeanor on the morning of the attack as threatening and detached. Her account of him saying “I don’t want to hurt you,” delivered not as a plea but as a warning, has been pivotal in framing the narrative that Sentamu was preparing for violence. The prosecution has also highlighted her comparison of his behavior to characters in the London-based crime drama Top Boy, arguing that Sentamu seemed to model himself on fictional depictions of intimidation and retribution.

In contrast, the defense has portrayed Sentamu as a young man grappling with significant challenges due to his autism. Their argument hinges on persuading the jury that his neurological condition impaired his ability to manage his emotions and foresee the consequences of his actions.

While they do not deny that he stabbed Elianne, they contend that the act occurred during a moment of uncontrollable emotional turmoil rather than as part of a premeditated plan. This defense, however, faces considerable challenges.

The prosecution has emphasized Sentamu’s actions after the stabbing, including fleeing the scene, discarding the knife, and lying about his identity when apprehended. These actions, they argue, demonstrate a clear awareness of guilt and contradict the notion of a spontaneous, uncontrolled outburst.

The trial has now become a contest of narratives. The jury must weigh the defense’s claims of diminished responsibility against the prosecution’s assertion that Sentamu’s actions were deliberate and motivated by a perceived slight to his pride and status. At its heart, the case asks whether the tragic death of Elianne Andam was the result of a young man’s inability to cope with his emotions or a calculated act driven by anger and retribution.

Ultimately, the jury’s decision will depend on how they interpret Sentamu’s mindset at the time of the attack. If they accept the defense’s argument that his autism significantly mitigates his culpability, they may return a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder.

However, if they align with the prosecution’s view that the stabbing was an intentional act rooted in a sense of grievance, the charge of murder may stand. As the trial continues, all eyes remain on the courtroom, awaiting a verdict that will seek to bring justice to the life so tragically lost.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

Hassan Sentamu stands accused of the murder of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, a charge that requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were both intentional and carried out with the requisite malice aforethought.

Alongside the murder charge, Sentamu faces an additional count of possessing a blade in a public place, which is a strict liability offense under UK law. While Sentamu has admitted to manslaughter, he denies murder, arguing that his actions were the result of a “loss of control” precipitated by his autism.

Under UK law, the defense of diminished responsibility, as outlined in the Homicide Act 1957 (amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), provides that an individual may avoid a murder conviction if they can demonstrate that their mental condition substantially impaired their ability to understand their actions, make rational decisions, or exercise self-control. Sentamu’s defense hinges on this argument, with his legal team asserting that his autism significantly influenced his response to the perceived provocation.

The defense also raises the issue of “loss of control,” another partial defense to murder under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. For this defense to succeed, Sentamu must show that his actions were triggered by circumstances that would have caused a person of normal self-restraint and tolerance to act in a similar manner.

However, the law explicitly excludes situations where the loss of control arises from a desire for revenge, which the prosecution argues applies in this case, citing Sentamu’s statement, “I can’t let this slide,” and his deliberate preparation in bringing a knife to the scene.

The prosecution has sought to undermine the weight of the defense’s claims by highlighting Sentamu’s calculated actions before and after the stabbing, including the deliberate concealment of the knife, the wearing of gloves and a mask, and his immediate flight from the scene.

They argue that these steps reflect premeditation rather than an impulsive loss of control. The jury will ultimately need to consider whether Sentamu’s autism substantially impaired his judgment and behavior to the extent that his culpability is diminished.

The possession of a blade charge adds another layer of complexity. Sentamu has claimed he had a lawful reason for carrying the knife, but this remains unsubstantiated. In UK law, carrying a blade in public is a serious offense, and defenses such as carrying it for self-defense are not generally accepted. The prosecution’s argument that Sentamu brought the weapon with intent to use it will weigh heavily against any mitigating claims of lawful possession.

As the trial progresses, the jury will need to carefully assess whether Sentamu’s autism and alleged loss of control can diminish his culpability for the fatal stabbing. While these arguments may provide partial defenses, they do not absolve him of responsibility for Elianne’s death. The burden of proof rests with both sides to present a compelling case, and the ultimate verdict will set a critical precedent for how mental health conditions are weighed in serious criminal cases.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next case update, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

Bénédict Tarot Freeman

Editor-at-Large

VPN City-Desk

citydesk@vpnldn.co.uk