Solicitor General v Tina McGuire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Davis |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 283 (Admin) |
| Date | 23 January 2020 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | No.QB-2019-003302 |
[2020] EWHC 283 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Davis
Mrs Justice May
No.QB-2019-003302
Ms K. Hardcastle appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr J. Hipkin appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Lord Justice Davis (giving the judgment of the Court):
Her Majesty's Solicitor General applies for the committal of the respondent, Tina McGuire, on the basis of a deliberate breach of court injunctions. The actual breach is of a kind which has occurred on previous occasions so far as other individuals have been concerned. We say at the outset that in this case the breach has been, and is, admitted, as the respondent has herself confirmed to us this morning. The only real issue is as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
The context is the notorious murder of Jamie Bulger on 12 February 1993. He was a toddler, just two years old at the time. His killers were two boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who, distressingly, were themselves but young children, only 10 1/2 years old or thereabouts, at the time. In many jurisdictions that would not be an age at which criminal responsibility could attach at all. Indeed, so far as this jurisdiction is concerned, i.e. the jurisdiction of England and Wales, the two of them exceeded by only a margin of a few months the age, 10 years, at which criminal responsibility can attach.
The ensuing trial at Preston Crown Court attracted enormous publicity. There was widespread distress and revulsion that so little a child could have been so wantonly and gratuitously abducted and killed by two 10-year-old children. Upon conviction, the two were sentenced, as required by law, by the trial judge, Morland J, to indefinite detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. Reporting restrictions as to their names were lifted after conviction. But the judge maintained significant restrictions with a view to aiding their subsequent reformation and rehabilitation.
Sustained levels of extreme hostility towards the two have persisted over the years. In such circumstances, the then President of the Family Division in 2000 imposed wide-ranging injunctions designed to deal with real concerns that, on release on licence, each of Venables and Thompson would be exposed, even where they adopted new names and new identities, to a real risk of serious harm or even death if their identities and appearances were revealed. Such injunctions have, with some variations made over the years, remained in place. There is an identified continuing need for them. Indeed, an application to discharge the injunctions was rejected by the current President of the Family Division only last year: see Venables v News Group Papers [2019] EWHC 494 (Fam).
It is also to be noted, and indeed to be stressed, that the ongoing concerns relate not only to Venables and Thompson themselves; the concerns also relate to those individuals who may be wrongly identified as them. Indeed, there has been at least one serious incident where that has happened. Put very broadly, the injunctions in place prohibit, amongst other things, the publication or solicitation of (1) any images or descriptions of the physical appearances of Venables and Thompson; (2) any information purporting to identify any persons formerly known as them, and (3) any information purporting to describe their past, present or future whereabouts. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out the precise details of the injunctions in question.
Such injunctions are directed to the world at large and must be obeyed. As stated by Lord Burnett LCJ in the recent case of Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers and others [2019] EWHC 241 (QB) at para.12:
“Compliance is not optional. Anybody who has been served with or knows of the injunctions and, with that knowledge, acts contrary to their prohibitions is guilty of contempt of court and liable to be punished for the breaches. It is essential in the public interest that these principles should be upheld. It is fundamental to the rule of law that orders of the court are obeyed. An injunction of this sort is granted by a court only after careful consideration of all the evidence, the applicable law and arguments advanced by the parties. If it is suggested that the judge has made an error in granting the injunction, there is the possibility of appeal. It is also possible to apply to vary an injunction if circumstances change. There may well be a temptation for individuals, almost always on incomplete or superficial understanding of the position, to believe that they know better and, in a misguided way, to conceive that they are right to undermine the rule of law by breaching an injunction of this sort. There are others who do so appearing to welcome the consequences they might face; and others, particularly in a case of this sort, who are motivated by pure malice to those protected by the injunction, and without any thought for the wider implications. The difference between today and the pre-internet and social media era is the very easy practical way any individual can breach an order of the court and widely disseminate information.”
Unfortunately, over the years there have continued to be instances of a deliberate...
To continue reading
Request your trial