A BROMSGROVE 17-year-old convicted of fatally stabbing a teenager almost two years ago has failed in an Appeal Court bid to clear his name.

The boy -- referred to as 'S' -- was acquitted of murdering Joseph Edwards but convicted of his manslaughter at Worcester Crown Court on July 16 last year.

'S' was 15 when he stabbed the 17-year-old he barely knew with a kitchen knife in a street attack in Redditch on November 21 1998.

He was sentenced to four years detention in a young offenders' institution by Judge Michael Mott after the jury rejected his self-defence claims.

On Friday, Lord Justice Roch, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court with Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Gray, dismissed claims the conviction was unsafe.

The judges rejected arguments the jury had wrongly not been allowed to hear medical evidence that he was suffering from a mental disability at the time of the killing.

Lord Justice Roch told the court that although the pair barely knew each other their girlfriends had been involved in a fight in the days leading up to the stabbing.

Three days before the killing, 'S' was beaten up so badly by Edwards in a Redditch shopping centre he required hospital treatment.

'S' then armed himself with a 15cm kitchen knife before leaving his girlfriend's house at 8pm.

Mr John Saunders QC, representing 'S', earlier told the court that 'S' took the knife in case he was attacked by Edwards.

'S' was walking down the street with his girlfriend and her sister when Edwards confronted them.

It was apparent from witness testimony Edwards jumped out of a car and began the attack, said the judge.

He added: "What is certain is in the course of the incident Edwards was stabbed with a knife that 'S' had taken from his girlfriend's house."

Mr Saunders argued the manslaughter conviction should be quashed because the trial judge had refused to admit evidence that 'S' was suffering from auditory short-term memory weakness.

In his desire to seem mature and compensate for his weakness, 'S' had a tendency to interrupt and give impulsive answers, said Mr Saunders.

He added the jury needed this information to view in context the police interview and his performance in the witness box.

But Lord Justice Roch upheld Justice Mott's decision.

"Having read the transcript of the interview there is no evidence of 'S' having had difficulty in understanding or answering questions put to him.

"There are a few examples of 'S' interrupting or giving impulsive answers without thinking."

Lord Justice Roch remarked Judge Mott had the advantage over the Appeal Court of viewing 'S' in the witness box.

"In the circumstances it is quite impossible in our judgement for us to say the judge's ruling in the matter was wrong.

"On the contrary, the judge's ruling was correct in that it excluded evidence that had no relevance to any issue in the case."

He also rejected Mr Saunders's complaint that the jury should have been told that 'S' was of good character, despite his 1998 caution for criminal damage and common assault.

Lord Justice Roch remarked: "To allow 'S' to present himself as a person of wholly good character, enjoying the full benefit of the direction, would have involved the court giving directions to the jury which were misleading."

The judge also dismissed arguments the four-year sentence was too long.