Boyband frontman Lee Ryan is set to be sentenced for a racially aggravated assault on a Black air steward after losing a High Court bid to clear his name.
Ryan, 43, singer of the band Blue, was dragged before a court after telling a British Airways cabin crew member that she was like a “sweet chocolate chip cookie”.
The singer, who was also accused of taking the woman’s wrists in his hands in the July 2022 incident, was convicted by magistrates in 2023 of racially aggravated assault, having also admitted being drunk on an aircraft.
He was initially given a suspended sentence, but the punishment was rescinded pending a bid to overturn his conviction, which went first to Isleworth Crown Court.
A judge rejected his appeal, but he fought on, taking his case to the High Court in a legal challenge to the crown court’s refusal to “state a case” and allow an appeal to High Court judges.
However, he is now set to be sentenced for his crimes after Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Johnson rejected his claim and sent his case back to the crown court.
In a joint judgment today, the judges told how Ryan was “drunk” on a plane from Glasgow to London on July 31, 2022.
“During the flight, he spoke to a member of the aircraft’s cabin staff, Ms Gordon, who is a Black woman,” they said.
“He said she was pretty and like a ‘sweet chocolate chip cookie’. Ms Gordon told him to return to his seat.
“It is common ground that he reached out his hands and physically touched her.
“Ms Gordon said that he grabbed both her wrists, leaned in as if to kiss her, and said: ‘I’ll have your chocolate babies’.”
Ryan was arrested and quizzed, telling police that he had been a “d***head” and saying, “I wish I could actually send the girl a bunch of flowers…” and “my best friends are Black and Asian”.
He later pleaded guilty to being drunk on an aircraft and was convicted of racially aggravated assault and threatening a member of aircraft crew.
At an appeal at Isleworth Crown Court in November 2024, he gave evidence, denying grabbing hold of the victim’s wrists.
“He admitted touching her wrists with an open palm and said that was by way of an apology when he realised that his comments were unwelcome,” said the judges.
“This was different from the account that he gave in interview, where he had admitted grabbing her wrists.”
The court allowed his appeal against the conviction for threatening the woman, but his challenge to the assault conviction was rejected.
Ryan’s lawyers then asked the court to “state a case”, a legal requirement for an appeal against a magistrates’ conviction to the High Court.
But the crown court refused to do so, describing his bid for a further appeal as “frivolous”.
However, Ryan then pushed on, applying to the High Court for a judicial review of the crown court’s decision not to state a case.
Rejecting his bid today, Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Johnson said the crown court had been right to describe his challenge as “frivolous”.
Ryan had complained that adverse inferences were drawn against him, because his account about whether he took the woman’s wrists in his hands had changed between police interview and court.
He said it was wrong to say his story had changed because his accounts in interview and in court had been “consistent” with each other.
He also claimed adverse inferences could not be drawn because he had been interviewed while under arrest for sexual assault and public order offences, different to the assault charge he faced at trial.
Giving judgment, the judges said: “It was a case where the defendant had given one account at interview – an admission that he had grabbed Ms Gordon’s wrists, albeit without menace – but then gave an inconsistent account at trial – a denial that he had grabbed her wrists.
“His explanation for the inconsistency was rejected by the court.
“The central task for the crown court was to assess the reliability and credibility of the competing accounts given by Ms Gordon and Mr Ryan.
“In doing so, it was entitled to rely on the inconsistency between Mr Ryan’s account in interview, which coincided with Ms Gordon’s allegation that he had grabbed her wrists, and the account he gave in evidence.
“The essential reasoning of the court was that it believed Ms Gordon, who had been sober at the time and who was a consistent and compelling witness, and they disbelieved Mr Ryan, who had been drunk at the time and had been inconsistent. That was sufficient for the court to dismiss the appeal.
“It follows that the court was right to regard the application to state a case as frivolous. There is no error in its decision to decline to state a case.
“The claim is dismissed. Mr Ryan will therefore now be sentenced by the crown court.”
