R v William Cornick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr. Justice Coulson,The Hon. Mr Justice Coulson |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: U20140770 / T20147359 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 03 November 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3623 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SITTING AT LEEDS CROWN COURT
The Court House
1, Oxford Row
Leeds LS1 3BG
The Honourable Mr. Justice Coulson
Case No: U20140770 / T20147359
Paul Greaney QC for the Crown
Richard Wright QC and Mark Foley for the Defendant
David Glen provided written submissions on behalf of the Media but did not appear at the hearing
Hearing date: 3 November 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
INTRODUCTION
On Monday 3 November 2014, William Cornick pleaded guilty to the murder of his Spanish teacher, Mrs Ann Maguire. He was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a specified minimum term of 20 years. William Cornick was 15 years and 10 months old when he killed Mrs Maguire, and 16 at the time of sentence. It is believed to be the first case of a pupil killing his or her teacher in a British classroom. In consequence, there was widespread public interest in the case, and such interest was increased still further by the love and affection in which Mrs Maguire was held in Leeds, and the inexplicable nature of her murder. All the relevant background is set out in my Sentencing Remarks, attached as Appendix 1.
Because of the age of William Cornick, he was the subject of an order granted by Leeds Crown Court just a few days after the killing preventing his identification pursuant to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 ("the Act"). By then, contrary to the convention which used to prevail in such cases, The Sun had already published his name. However, the Attorney General decided not to take any action against them.
Following William Cornick's guilty plea and sentence, the defence sought an extension of the s.39 order. This was resisted by the Media, who produced written submissions asking for the order to be discharged. It is important to note that this application, led by The Guardian newspaper, was only in respect of William Cornick himself. In addition to the defendant, the original order set out in a Schedule a long list of other children who were witnesses or had some other involvement in the case. No one sought to discharge that part of the order and I expressly stipulated that the order would remain in force in respect of each of those children noted in the Schedule.
At the end of the hearing, I gave a short oral ruling in which I explained why I was refusing to extend the s.39 order in respect of the defendant. In consequence, William Cornick could be identified as the killer of Ann Maguire. I said, in view of the interest in that aspect of the case, that I would provide my fuller reasons in writing.
THE ISSUES
There were two issues before the court in respect of the s.39 order. The first was whether William Cornick could demonstrate that his Article 2 rights would be affected by his public identification. It was agreed that if he could show a real and immediate risk to his life as a consequence of publication, then that would trump all other considerations and would require the court to continue the anonymity order. The second issue arose if the Article 2 claim was not made out, and depended on a balancing exercise between William Cornick's welfare (s.44 of the same Act, and Article 8), and the Article 10 rights of the Press and the public in respect of open justice.
I propose to set out the law briefly before addressing each of the two issues.
THE LAW
(a) The Principle of Open Justice and the Identification of Defendants
Justice should be open to public scrutiny, and the Media are the conduit thought which most members of the public receive information about court proceedings. It follows that the principle of open justice is inextricably linked to the freedom of the media to report court proceedings: see Lord Reed JSE in A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25 at paragraph 26. Concealing the identity of a party can erode public confidence in the administration of justice and makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely: see R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a firm) [1999] QB 966 T and Re S (a child) [2005] 1 AC 593.
In the latter case, Lord Steyn said that:
"…from a newspaper's point of view a report of a sensational trial without revealing the identity of the defendant would be a very much disembodied trial. If the newspapers choose not to contest such an injunction, they are less likely to give prominence to reports of the trial. Certainly, readers will be less interested and editors will act accordingly. Informed debate about criminal justice will suffer."
Although a similar point was made by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry JSE in Re Guardian News and Media [2010] UKSC 1 at paragraph 63, I found his references to the viability of newspapers and magazines, and the need to ensure that they made enough money to survive, rather less persuasive than Lord Steyn's emphasis on informed debate.
In my view, the most powerful recent statement on this topic can be found in the judgment of a five person Court of Appeal in R v Croydon Crown Courtex parte Trinity Mirror PLC and Others [2008] EWCA Crim. 50. There, the then President of the Queen's Bench Division, Sir Igor Judge, said:
"In our judgment it is impossible to over-emphasise the importance to be attached to the ability of the media to report criminal trials. In simple terms this represents the embodiment of the principle of open justice in a free country. An important aspect of the public interest in the administration of criminal justice is that the identity of those convicted and sentenced for criminal offices should not be concealed. Uncomfortable though it may frequently be for the defendant that is a normal consequence of his crime…From time to time occasions will arise where restrictions on this principle are considered appropriate, but they depend on express legislation, and, where the Court is vested with a discretion to exercise such powers, on the absolute necessity for doing so in the individual case."
In my respectful opinion, this observation properly stresses the general principle that, in the vast majority of cases, a defendant in a criminal case can be expected to be named, unless there is an absolute necessity for anonymity.
(b) Section 39 of the Children and Young Person Act 1933 and the Relevant Authorities.
Section 39 is in the following terms:
" 9 Power to prohibit publication of certain matter in newspapers.
(1) In relation to any proceedings in any court…, the court may direct that—
(a) no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person [by or against] or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken, or as being a witness therein:
(b) no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid;
except in so far (if at all) as may be permitted by the direction of the court."
The cases make plain that the onus is on the party seeking an order under s.39 to establish, either by way of Article 2 or by way of Article 8, that the rights of the Press and public under Article 10 should be trumped by the welfare of the child. Furthermore, the decision in R v Lee (a minor) [1993] 1 WLR 103 is authority for the proposition that the mere fact that the accused or convicted party is under 18 is not of itself a sufficient justification to make a s.39 order. The court added that it was wrong to say that it would only be in rare and exceptional cases that an order for anonymity would not be made. The court's discretion was not so fettered. There had to be a good reason for making an order under s.39.
On an application of this kind, the court has to undertake the balancing exercise in accordance with the principles identified by Simon Brown LJ (as he then was) in R v Winchester Crown Court [2000] 1 Crim. App R 11 (Divisional Court), which were recently restated by Hooper LJ in R (Y) v Aylesbury Crown Court and Others [2012] EWHC 1140 (Admin). They are:
"i) In deciding whether to impose or thereafter to lift reporting restrictions, the court will consider whether there are good reasons for naming the defendant;
ii) In reaching that decision, the court will give considerable weight to the age of the offender and to the potential damage to any young person of public identification as a criminal before the offender has the benefit or burden of adulthood;
iii) By virtue of section 44 of the 1933 Act, the court must "have regard to the welfare of the child or young person";
iv) The prospect of being named in court with the accompanying disgrace is a powerful deterrent and the naming of a defendant in the context of his punishment serves as a deterrent to others. These deterrents are proper objectives for the court to seek;
v) There is a strong public interest in open justice and in the public knowing as much as possible about what has happened in court, including the identity of those who have committed crime;
vi) The weight to be attributed to the different factors may shift at different stages of the proceedings and, in particular, after the defendant has been found, or pleads, guilty and is sentenced. It may then be appropriate to place greater weight on the interest of the public in knowing the identity of those who have committed crimes, particularly serious and detestable crimes;
vii) The fact that an appeal has been made may be a material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summary of Judgment - In re JKL (Aaron Sterritt - Talk Talk)
...later prosecution and conviction. The Appellant’s representatives, drawing to the attention of the court the decision in R v Cornick [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB), accepted that there is no basis for extending the grant of anonymity. 3 The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Judicial Communica......
-
Sterritt (Aaron's) Application
...later prosecution and conviction. The appellant’s representatives, drawing to the attention of the court the decision in R v Cornick [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB), accepted that there is no basis for extending the grant of anonymity. Introduction [1] The legal challenge, exclusively of the human ri......
-
R v Charlie Pearce – Ruling On Lifting Of Press Restrictions
... ... the law and need not rehearse it again here ... In R v Cornick [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB), the defendant, aged 16, pleaded guilty to the ... murder of the teacher Ann Maguire in the classroom. Coulson J articulated a ... ...
-
R v Z
...of the juvenile defendant. 13 An example of this exercise leading to the court permitting the identity of a defendant being published is R v Cornick [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB), a decision under s.39 CYPA 1933. In that case, Coulson J permitted identification of a defendant who had pleaded guilty......