Lee Ryan, a singer from the pop group Blue, has filed a Supreme Court challenge to overturn his conviction for racially aggravated assault . The legal action follows a July 2022 incident involving a British Airways employee on a flight from Glasgow to London City Airport.
The "chocolate cookie" remarks on the Glasgow-to-London flight
The core of the case involves the treatment of Leah Gordon, a British Airways flight attendant . According to the report, Lee Ryan directed derogatory comments at Ms. Gordon regarding her complexion, specifically referring to her as a "chocolate cookie" and stating he wanted "chocolate children." The situation escalated when Lee Ryan allegedly approached Ms. Gordon from behind to demand a kiss and grabbed both of her wrists after being told to stay away.
Witnesses on the aircraft described Lee Ryan as staggering through the cabin and slurring his speech. The confrontation reportedly began after the singer was denied additional alcohol and instructed by crew members to return to his seat. Ms. Gordon testified that the encounter left her feeling embarrassed and intimidated, asserting that the racial nature of the comments was unacceptable regardless of the singer's state of mind.
From Isleworth Crown Court to the August 11 Supreme Court deadline
The legal trajectory for Lee Ryan has been a series of failed appeals. After being found guilty in 2023, the singer initially received a suspended sentence, though this was paused to allow for legal challenges. As the report says, an application to overturn the conviction was rejected by Isleworth Crown Court in 2024, and a subsequent attempt at the High Court also failed.
Now, the case has reached the highest judicial level. During a recent hearing, barrister Thom Dyke informed the court that a legal appeal application had been submitted. The deadline for this submission is August 11, with a decision regarding the specific "point of law" expected within the following two months . If the Supreme Court refuses the appeal, Lee Ryan will face sentencing once again at Isleworth Crown Court.
A bottle of port and the "drunk banter" defense
The defense strategy for Lee Ryan centers on his level of intoxication and a lack of racial animus. During the original trial, Lee Ryan admitted to consuming a full bottle of port and eating cheese in the British Airways lounge following a flight delay. He claimed to have no memory of the assault or the comments made to Leah Gordon.
In an effort to distance himself from the "racially aggravated" label, Lee Ryan pointed to his personal history, citing his relationships with mixed-race and Black women, as well as his Black bandmate in Blue. He described the incident in court as "drunk banter," claiming there was no malice intended. While he expressed regret in police interviews—even calling himself a "d***head"—the courts have thus far rejected the notion that intoxication excuses the derogatory nature of the remarks.
A legal history spanning a 2003 drink-driving ban and 2014 criminal damage
This current battle is not an isolated incident in the singer's public life. Lee Ryan has a documented history of legal troubles that suggest a recurring pattern of volatility. This includes a drink-driving ban in 2003 and a 2008 conviction for the assault of a taxi driver.
Further complications appeared in 2010 when he was charged with assaulting an ex-fiancee, though that specific charge was eventually withdrawn. In 2014, Lee Ryan faced another driving ban lasting two years after he failed to provide a breath specimen and was involved in an incident of criminal damage. This history of aggression and substance-related offenses provides a broader context to the 2022 British Airways incident.
The specific "point of law" Thom Dyke is challenging
While the appeal has moved to the Supreme Court, a critical piece of information remains missing: the exact "point of law" that Thom Dyke is contesting. The source does not specify whether the challenge targets the definition of "racially aggravated," the admissibility of certain evidence, or the sentencing guidelines for intoxicated offenders.
Furthermore, the report focuses primarily on the legal filings and the victim's testimony; it remains unclear if the Supreme Court will view the "drunk banter" defense as a legitimate legal error in the lower courts' rulings or simply a failed attempt to mitigate a clear criminal act.
Comments 0