HM Solicitor General v Cox and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ15X02223 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 27 May 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1241 (QB)
Lord Thomas, Lord Chief Justice
Mr Justice Ouseley
Case No: HQ15X02223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ben Watson (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Applicant
James Tucker (instructed by Berry, Redmond, Gordon & Penney LLP) for the First Respondent
Oliver Willmott (instructed by Berry, Redmond, Gordon & Penney LLP) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 16 March 2016
Mr Justice Ouseley (with whom Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ joins in the judgment):
The Solicitor General brings these committal proceedings against the respondents, Kyle Cox and Damien Parker-Stokes, with the permission of the Divisional Court, Irwin and Foskett JJ, granted on 20 October 2015. He seeks their committal to prison for taking photographs in court at Bristol Crown Court, including photographs of their friend, Ryan Sheppard, during his sentencing hearing for murder. Committal is also sought for their publishing some of the photographs on Facebook, a contempt aggravated by comments, variously supportive or worse, of Sheppard as he faced life imprisonment, critical of the acquitted co-defendant of Sheppard and of another female present at the murder scene, and derogatory towards a judge or the judiciary generally.
(1) The facts
Sheppard, then aged 17, murdered Mark Roberts in Weston-super-Mare in the early hours of 12 October 2013 in what the Recorder of Bristol, HHJ Ford QC, in sentencing, described as an unprovoked, sustained, brutal and cowardly attack. The murder was filmed on a mobile phone by a female friend of Sheppard, his acquitted co-defendant. Sheppard pleaded guilty. The phone has not been traced, but there was evidence, referred to at the sentencing hearing, that Sheppard and others viewed it shortly after the murder. The prosecuting QC described that as an element of triumphalism.
Sheppard's sentencing hearing took place at Bristol Crown Court on 4 August 2014, in Court 2 at 2 p.m. The prosecutor opened the facts. The victim's partner and his aunt, on behalf of his mother, read their moving Victim Personal Statements aloud to the court. Other members of his family were also present. It was a very stressful and emotional experience for them. Sheppard's family and friends were in the public gallery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years and 3 months.
Parker-Stokes, aged 18 by 4 August 2014, had arrived at the Crown Court during the morning session. He noticed that another friend of his was appearing in Court 2. He went into Court 2. There, he took a photograph on his mobile phone of his friend on the screen, appearing by video-link. In the afternoon, Parker-Stokes was in the public gallery of Court 2 with Cox, Sheppard's family and other friends, for the sentencing of Sheppard. From there, on his mobile phone he took five photographs and a short video of Sheppard in the dock. Some images show dock officers. Some images, and the video, include part of the notices prohibiting the use of mobile phones; the composition of the pictures suggests that that was deliberate.
Cox, n ow just 18, had also arrived at the Crown Court in the morning. He went into Court 10 where HHJ Picton was sitting. At 10.57 a.m. he used his mobile phone to take a photograph of the judge. The court was in session but it appears that no case was actually being heard. Cox was later present in Court 2 for Sheppard's sentencing hearing.
Some of the images were uploaded on to various Facebook pages, with comments. On 4 August 2014, Parker-Stokes uploaded an image of Sheppard in the dock on to Sheppard's Facebook page, adding the comment: "Respect g at least u had the balls to admit it accept some slaggy little girls who are two shock to admit it that had to try to blame it on u nuf love xx." The two girls referred to were the acquitted co-defendant and a key prosecution witness. That same day, Cox uploaded the same image on to his own Facebook page, adding this: "Ride or Die Certified Southwest G". It was not seriously disputed but that "G" was in common use as a shorthand for gangster, and "Southwest G" was a self-descriptor used among the likes of Sheppard and his friends, that is to say youth within the criminal justice system in Weston-super-Mare. Cox also commented on Sheppard's Facebook page, under the image of Sheppard in the dock: "Ride it g love ya loads snm anyone got summat to say say it love ya kid xx". On 6 August 2014, Cox uploaded on to his own Facebook page the picture which he had taken of HHJ Picton in court, adding the words "Fuk the judge!".
At that time, Sheppard's Facebook page was accessible by 276 "friends", and Cox's by 1406 "friends". 25 people "liked" the posting on Sheppard's Facebook page, with 7 commenting on it. 63 "liked" the posting of the image of Sheppard, with commentary on Cox's Facebook page, with 3 commenting; 43 "liked" the posting of the image of HHJ Picton, with its comment.
The family of the murder victim, Mark Roberts, brought the Facebook postings to the attention of the police team which had investigated his murder and, later, court staff did the same. HHJ Ford QC was informed of this and that the police were proposing to refer the matter to the Attorney General's Office, once the investigation was complete. He asked that the Attorney General be informed that it was, in the judge's view, important that the Attorney General appreciate that the image of Sheppard had been taken during the sentencing hearing for an offence of murder, and at a time when the deceased's family was in court; and that the text material attached to the images suggested that they were being treated as "trophy images".
Parker-Stokes was arrested and interviewed on 25 September 2014. He admitted taking the picture of Sheppard in the dock and posting it on Sheppard's Facebook page, with the accompanying text, but said that he did not know it was an offence to take pictures in court. He "apologised" for his actions. It was only later that the other photographs and video on his mobile phone were discovered, and he was interviewed again in December 2014. He admitted taking them but maintained his ignorance that taking photographs was an offence. He denied having read or seen the signs at the Crown Court prohibiting the use of mobile phones in court. He again said that he "apologised" to the court and to the family of Mr Roberts, but continued to deny committing any contempt.
Cox was interviewed the day after Parker-Stokes was first interviewed. He admitted taking and posting the image of HHJ Picton, but also said, untruthfully, that he, not Parker-Stokes, had taken the image of Sheppard in the dock and had uploaded it to Facebook; indeed, he claimed that he had taken all the photographs. He refused to tell the police where the mobile phone was, giving "no comment" answers to questions about it. He too "apologised" for his actions, but denied knowing he was committing an offence.
Neither Cox nor Parker-Stokes are unfamiliar with courts and their procedures: Cox has been convicted on 9 occasions of a total of 16 offences, 4 of which related to police, courts or prisons. He was last convicted in March 2014, and was on licence on 4 August following a custodial sentence arising from earlier breaches of court orders; Parker-Stokes has been convicted on 21 occasions of 54 offences, with an extensive history of breaching court orders. 27 of his offences related to police, courts or prisons. His most recent conviction was in September 2014.
There are signs at the entrance to every court room at Bristol Crown Court, slightly larger than A4 size, saying: "Notice to All Court Users. The use of mobile telephones, recording equipment and personal stereos is not allowed in the courtrooms". Another sign at the entrance to courtrooms, and it appears to be the one visible in the photographs taken by Parker-Stokes from the public gallery, states: "Switch off mobile phones. Please ensure all mobile phones are switched off before entering court or hearing room." At the entrance to the public gallery for Court 2 is a sign saying, among a short list of requirements, "…. Mobile phones should be switched off and remain out of sight." The general information board has a notice saying: "It is an offence to take photographs, record video clips or make unauthorised audio recordings anywhere in this hearing centre."
Parker-Stokes' affidavit for these proceedings stated that his comments were meant to congratulate Sheppard for having the courage to admit what he did, unlike the two girls who were with him at the time, and who blamed it all on him. "Respect" was a greeting. "G" was simply something that his friends called each other; he did not know that it meant "gangster". He wanted Sheppard to know that he was thinking of him. It was not done to glorify Sheppard. Mr Willmott on his behalf submitted that no alternative meaning had been put forward. He had no intention of interfering with the course of justice, and "did not foresee that justice might be interfered with". He had not been to the Crown Court before and was unaware of the prohibition on taking photographs. He was distressed to learn that the victim's family had seen the photographs and comment, since they would not understand what he was saying; he would like to apologise to them. Parker-Stokes was in custody at the time of the contempt hearing, and declined to come to court. He had the opportunity to give evidence before us, but in effect declined it.
Cox d ecided to give no evidence either, but he had failed to provide the required affidavit for that purpose anyway. We focus on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Amanda Ann Smith
...such as that which had occurred in Dover on 30 th January. 13 There is no doubt that this conduct was a contempt of court: see HM Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC (QB) 1241 at [32] and following. Mr Wait accepted as much in his oral submissions. We also have no doubt that, when sentencin......
-
HM Attorney General v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
...exposing the wrongdoer to the more severe sanctions available in that jurisdiction, including committal: see Solicitor General v Cox [2016] 2 Cr. App. R. 15. Given the terms of s 41(2)(c), there is therefore a potential for overlap between this and the first 28 Thirdly, there is contempt b......
-
R v John Jordan
...law or a court order of which the person knows”: see para 28–36. The authority cited for this proposition is Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) [2016] 2 Cr App R 15 (DC). That was a case of contempt by publishing photographs taken in court in breach of section 41 of the Crimina......
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland
...General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin); [2012] 1 WLR 991; Solicitor General v Cox (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB); [2016] 2 Cr App R 15, para 73. Furthermore, the requirement of confidentiality was imposed directly by the court on the respondent, who was......
-
A new look for the law of contempt in New Zealand?
...May 1997. 13La Rue v Ministry of Justice Collections Unit [2016] NZHC 666 (criticism of a Judge on Facebook); Solicitor-General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) (mobile phone camera being used in the courtroom); Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin) (juror googling information about ......