Craig Winch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Warby,Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB) |
| Date | 18 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-001512 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 1328 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Warby
and
Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2021-001512
And in the matter of an application for a contra mundum injunction
In the Matter of:
The persons formerly known as:
Kate Wilson (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the Claimants
Hearing date: 7 May 2021
Approved Judgment
Introduction
The first claimant in this case, Craig Winch, used to be involved in serious and organised crime. On 1 April 2021, in the Crown Court at Teesside, Winch was sentenced by HHJ Deborah Sherwin for 23 offences to which he had earlier pleaded guilty. These included a range of Class A drug offences, arson with intent to endanger life, and burglary. The total sentence was one of 15 months imprisonment, suspended for two years. That was far less than the ordinary guidelines would suggest. The main reason is that Winch is also an Assisting Offender under s 73 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). Colloquially, he is an informer. More than that, he is what is known as a “supergrass”. His roles as an Assisting Offender have included giving evidence in five trials and one re-trial which led to some 29 people being convicted and sentenced to a total of some 250 years imprisonment. He also provided the police with the information that led to his own convictions. For that and some other reasons his sentence was considerably discounted from what it would otherwise have been.
Everybody knows that informers are unpopular with those they help to bring to justice. Winch is by no means an exception. In her sentencing remarks, HHJ Sherwin referred to violence Winch had suffered in the past at the hands of Organised Crime Groups (OCGs), and assessed his current situation in this way:
“If your life was not in danger before, I am absolutely certain that it is now. These may be easy words to say but I am certain that, in your case, the risk is genuine and cannot be understated … Wherever you live you will spend your life constantly having to look over your shoulder and in fear.
…
I have … no doubt that you are being actively and professionally sought by those who wish you harm and that you will be forced to be vigilant for the remainder of your life. As I have already said, the assistance that you have given has been overwhelming and I am sure that your life will be constantly at risk wherever you are.”
To protect Winch, he and two female relatives — the second and third claimants in this case – are living under new names, and reporting restriction orders (RROs) were made in the Crown Court under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the 1981 Act), prohibiting reporting of Winch's involvement in the relevant trials, and of anything capable of identifying him or his whereabouts. But the RROs had expiry dates, as they must; s 4(2) only allows a Court to postpone reporting. The most recent order expired on 23 April 2021. On 22 April 2021, the claimants started this action by a claim form under CPR Part 8, using their former names, and giving these details of the claim:
“The claim is for a permanent injunction, effective against the world at large, to prohibit publication of photographs, images and other material which identifies or purports to identify the Claimants and to prohibit soliciting such information.
The injunction is necessary to protect the Claimants' Article 2, 3 and/or 8 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. …
As a consequence, a law enforcement agency has assessed that there is a real risk to his life and, because of their association with the First Claimant, also a real risk to the lives or safety of the Second and Third Claimants. The Claimant is now using a different name. The Second and Third Claimants, because of their connection with the First Claimant, also now use different names.”
On 23 April 2021, the claimants applied urgently for interim relief. Murray J granted an injunction until a return date of 7 May 2021, when we heard and granted an application to continue the orders until after final judgment in the claim, with some modifications. These are my reasons for those decisions.
The Evidence
The evidence at the hearing consisted of seven witness statements, and their exhibits. There was one statement from each of the claimants, two from an officer of a law enforcement agency (LEA) whom we have anonymised as “C”, and two from the claimants' solicitor, Mr Forshaw. All of this evidence was given or read in public, save that identifying details in the sentencing remarks of HHJ Sherwin were redacted in the public version and, for the same reason, one of C's witness statements was withheld from the public (“the closed statement”), and an RRO made under s 11 of the 1981 Act.
There is powerful evidence to support the claimants' case that they are at risk of death or serious physical harm if they can be identified and found by the OCGs whose members Winch has helped imprison.
Winch's statement speaks of “severe violence” inflicted on him by members of OCGs, describing beatings which were “the scariest of my life”, with an “everlasting effect” on his mental and physical health. He attests to his belief, based on what he has been told by the LEA, that his assistance in the criminal process has led to “a severe and ongoing threat to my life from multiple individuals and OCGs”. He lives in daily fear and is always looking over his shoulder, unable to lead a normal life, worried every day that he will be recognised. He says he is aware that OCG members located one of his close relatives, resulting in panic alarms being installed at their property by police.
The second claimant corroborates Winch's account, saying she was aware of the violence to which he was subjected, when he was hospitalised. She was and is scared he would end up dead. She has been told by the LEA that there is, by extension, a severe and ongoing threat to her life. She suffers fear and “paranoia of being recognised”, and has had to give up on previous relationships and work due to the threat against her. The third claimant's statement is on similar lines. She reports that the LEA has told her that her life is at risk by extension. She speaks of being “terrified that harm will come to me or my family and that we will be found” and of “living a life of terror.”
Witness C, in her open statement, describes the role of Winch in an OCG in the North East of England, as the conduit for the supply of significant quantities of controlled drugs, taking an active role. He ran up drug debts, and was subjected to violence to secure repayment, which led to him undergoing surgery for “a life altering injury”. He was taken on as an Assisting Offender in 2016. The LEA assessed Winch, and the second and third claimants as being at high risk of harm at that time. The level of risk was assessed as “severe”.
Witness C provides a summary of the trials in which Winch gave evidence, and the convictions and sentences in those cases. By way of illustration, the earliest led to a life sentence for arson with intent to endanger life. That was after a re-trial due to jury intimidation. In the third, eight offenders received sentences for drug offences ranging from 14 years to 18 months suspended. In the fourth case, four offenders were convicted of conspiracies to possess a firearm and to supply Class A drugs. The two lead offenders were sentenced to terms of 30 years and 28 years. Following Winch's assistance in securing these results, the risk to Winch and his family has increased. The LEA now assess “that the threat to him and his family is now considered to be extreme”. Should they be located by the OCGs this would “likely result in the infliction of serious harm or death”.
Witness C states that the LEA has identified a total of 12 OCGs, consisting of some 174 members, that are considered capable of posing a significant threat to the claimants. Of these 12, 8 are assessed as “having a high violence capacity” with access to firearms. She gives details of the OCGs, and the network of which they are part. She states, persuasively, that the potential footprint of the OCG network is “vast” and presents a threat to the claimants in multiple locations across the UK. The LEA's assessment is that “various OCGs are actively seeking the First claimant and his family, in order to cause them serious harm or kill them.” All of this is supplemented by further detail in the closed statement of Witness C. I would refer in particular to paragraphs 10, 11(b), 11(c) and 15. Taken as a whole, the evidence amply bears out the assessment of the sentencing Judge, that I have quoted already.
There was concern, of which Witness C gives evidence, that unless an order was made by the Court the commercial news media might publish something that enabled the OCGs to identify and locate the claimants such as (for instance) photographs of Winch, or descriptions of his physical appearance. It seems that at one stage, at least, one or more media representatives showed an interest in publishing a photograph. There was certainly extensive reporting of the case, and the previous trials, when the s 4(2) orders expired on 23 April 2021. But the risk to Winch and his family is clear from the sentencing remarks, and acknowledged in many of the published reports. The Daily Mail, for instance referred to Winch as having “A target on his back for life”....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
...or require it to be provided to third parties. A good recent example of that would be the names of the applicants in In re Winch [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB). In the particular circumstances of that case, there would be no question of the Court requiring or directing provision of the names of the......
-
HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation
...any event, the latter was based on prior Supreme Court authority: A v BBC [2014] AC 25, [2015] AC 588, [45]. 40 In Re Winch (No. 1) [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB), the Divisional Court (Warby LJ and Nicklin J) exercised the Venables jurisdiction to grant a contra mundum interim injunction to protec......
-
Craig Winch v and an application for a contra mundum injunction
...the world was granted until after judgment in the claim. 7 The court's reasons were set out in judgments handed down on 18 May 2021: [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB), [2021] EMLR 20. The principal judgment was that of Warby LJ, with which Nicklin J agreed. Having set out the background facts and iden......
-
Table of cases
...[1998] 1 CNLR iv (note) ................................................................... 379 Persons formerly known as Winch, Re, [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB) ...............82–83 Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SKCA 124, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2017] SCC......
-
Interlocutory Injunctions: General Principles
...250 See also OPQ v BJM , [2011] EWHC 1059 (QB), for a history of the Venables jurisdiction. 251 Re, Persons formerly known as Winch , [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB) [ Winch ]. Interlocutory Injunctions: General Principles 83 personam . 252 Although not necessary, eforts should be taken to give notic......