Stan Lucas Markham and Another v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Brian Leveson P |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Crim 739 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 201605644-45 A2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 09 June 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Crim 739
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT NOTTINGHAM
MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE
T20167538
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
( Sir Brian Leveson)
Mr Justice Blake
and
Mr Justice Lewis
Case No: 201605644-45 A2
Simon Myerson Q.C. for Stan Lucas Markham
Sam Green Q.C. for the Kim Rose Edwards
Peter Joyce Q.C. for the Crown
Hearing date: 4 May 2017
In most cases involving young persons, s. 45 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") which came into force from April 2015, replacing s. 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 ("the CYPA 1933") protects their identity from publication until they attain the age of 18. The court may, however, dispense with the restriction on publication if it is in the interests of justice to do so (s. 45(4) of the 1999 Act), or if its effect would be to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on reporting of the proceedings and it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction (s. 45(5) of the 1999 Act). In either case, it must have regard to the welfare of the child or young person: s. 45(6).
In this exceptional case, Haddon-Cave J concluded that there was a strong public interest in full and unrestricted reporting, notwithstanding that both defendants (now appellants) were then 15 years of age. Accordingly, he ruled that the protective Order should be lifted, but granted a stay in order to permit an application for judicial review. Thereafter, with the leave of Jay J, permission was granted to apply for judicial review of the decision, but this appeal (which carries with it the need for this court to make its own assessment of the position) has superseded the full hearing with the result that the proceedings in the Administrative Court become academic. In order to reach a conclusion on the matter, we have been provided with the skeleton argument being prepared for those proceedings and, on the basis that the campaign group Just Kids for Law had applied successfully to intervene in the judicial review proceedings, we allowed them time to provide written submissions: this has led to a delay in the promulgation of this judgment.
We have carefully considered all the material put before us. Notwithstanding the arguments advanced on behalf of both appellants and Just Kids for Law, for reasons which we explain in detail below, we endorse the approach of the judge and remove the protective Order that we made at the hearing of the appeal, pending the review of his decision. In the circumstances, we set out the facts in full, identifying those involved and the nature of their relationships.
On 10 October 2016, in the Crown Court at Nottingham before Haddon-Cave J, Stan Lucas Markham (who was born on 1 August 2001 and was then, and now, 15 years of age) pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to two counts of murder. His co-accused, Kim Rose Edwards (born on 13 June 2001 and now nearly 16 years of age) admitted two counts of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility; this plea was not accepted and a trial followed. On 18 October, she was convicted of both charges. On 10 November, Haddon-Cave J sentenced each to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and ordered, in both cases, that the minimum term specified under s. 269(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") should be 20 years less 206 days spent on remand. Both now appeal against sentence by leave of the single judge.
The Facts
Lucas Markham and Kim Edwards had been at school together and, in due course, became boyfriend and girlfriend. They clearly became besotted with each other and the relationship became sexual. It was also clear that, together with another girl, they became obsessed with discussing suicide. Despite that, when Kim Edwards attempted suicide, it was Lucas Markham who sought help for her.
Both were unhappy in their respective homes. Kim Edwards lived with her mother, Elizabeth, and her younger sister, Katie. She held grudges against them and resented the relationship between the two of them: Kim Edwards believed that her sister was favoured over her. Lucas Markham lived at the opposite end of Kim Edwards' street with his aunt and brothers. He came to share her grudges and hatred towards her mother and sister.
Doubtless because of their unhappiness, together, the two had previously run away from home; they were found some miles away and returned to their families. Over the weekend before the killings, they barricaded themselves in Lucas Markham's room before leaving, through a window, returning to Kim Edwards' home in order to collect her contraceptives. When they returned, Lucas Markham was rugby tackled and restrained by his family, and Kim Edwards was returned to her home where she found that her mother had moved her belongings from the room she shared with her younger sister. Lucas Markham's room had also been cleared out by his family.
Following these events, they met up again and jointly decided to kill Kim Edwards' mother and younger sister, planning what they intended to do in detail. The agreement was that both would meet at Kim Edwards' home late on Monday night, that is to say, on 11 April. He would tap on the window of the bedroom which Kim Edwards shared with her sister and she would then go to the nearby bathroom, open the window and let him into her home. He would bring a selection of knives and a change of clothing for use after the killings. At that stage, the agreement was for Lucas Markham to kill Elizabeth Edwards (then 49 years of age), and for Kim Edwards to kill her younger, 13 year-old sister.
This plan involved Lucas Markham walking for about half an hour in the dark from his home along a track, going up an alley at the back of her home, scaling a fence, and climbing a single storey extension at the back of the house to reach her bedroom window. That Monday night, he went to Kim Edwards' home as planned, but she had fallen asleep and did not hear the knocking and so he went home, returning the knives he had taken to the place from which he had taken them. They met up again on Tuesday after school (Lucas Markham having been excluded from the school that they had both been attending so that they could not meet during the day). Again, they discussed the plans to kill both mother and sister, and agreed to do so that night. Thus, for a second time, Lucas Markham walked to Kim Edwards' house, but events followed exactly the same pattern as had occurred the previous night.
The following day, Wednesday 13 April 2016, they met at the end of the school day, discussed the plans again, confirmed that they still wished to go through with the murders and arranged to do so that night. On this, the third occasion, Lucas Markham traversed the same route but, this time, Kim Edwards stayed awake and, as arranged, when she heard the knock, went into the bathroom, opened the window and let him in. She removed items from the sill to allow him easy, silent access.
Once inside the house, they unpacked his backpack and took out the four knives that he had selected and brought with him wrapped inside his change of clothing. Kim Edwards handled one of the knives in order to choose the weapon she was to use to kill her younger sister. They had a further conversation, agreeing, yet again, that they wished to go through with their plan to kill mother and sister. In the event, Kim Edwards decided that she could not kill her younger sister herself, so it was agreed that Lucas Markham would kill both.
At this time, the plan had developed to include the decision that both victims would be stabbed in their throats, through their voice boxes, in order to prevent them crying out. Whilst Kim Edwards stayed in the bathroom, Lucas Markham went into the mother's bedroom, and stabbed her in the throat. For part of the time, he pinned the mother down on the bed, kneeling astride her. Kim Edwards was able to hear sounds of her mother struggling and gurgling while the killing took place, so she went into the bedroom and saw Lucas Markham with a pillow over her mother's head. There were blood spatters on the wall, blood on the bed and the floor. Lucas Markham checked for a pulse, and confirmed death.
Kim Edwards then went into the bathroom, while Lucas Markham went into her younger sister's room, and killed her as well; from the position of her body, it appeared that Katie might have tried to move away from her killer. Her face was later covered with a sheet as Kim Edwards did not like the smell of blood.
In the aftermath of the killings, the two took a bath together and changed into clean clothing. They took the mattress from Kim Edwards' bed, which involved going back into the room where her younger sister's body lay, and took it downstairs into the living room. Over the course of the next 36 hours, they watched Twilight films, had sex, and set out drink from the shed on the kitchen table. They later explained that they had intended to kill themselves with alcohol and pills but did not, in the end, attempt to do so.
Lucas Markham was reported missing by his aunt and, on 14 April, they were both reported missing by their schools. Kim Edwards' house was visited twice that day by Lucas Markham's aunt, and once by a police officer. The two of them were inside, but no response was obtained from any of those visits. The police officer returned to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ayman Aziz
...reports. These extracts conveniently accompanied his written Skeleton Argument for the hearing. Discussion 23 R v Markham and Edwards [2017] EWCA Crim 739 [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 30 was an appeal which considered the minimum terms ordered in respect of juveniles and also the question whe......
-
KL v R
...be sensible. This also points to the requirement of urgent legislative intervention.” 50 Turning to the 1999 Act, in R v. Markham [2017] EWCA Crim 739; [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 30, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against sentence and, in the same proceedings, considered the propriet......
-
Thomas Westwood v The Queen
...several occasions, including R. v Vowles and others [2015] EWCA Crim 45, R. v Ahmed [2016] EWCA Crim 670, R. v Markham and another [2017] EWCA Crim 739, R. v Edwards, R. v Rendell [2019] EWCA Crim 621, and R. v Fisher [2019] EWCA Crim 18 In R. v Vowles Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd C.J., giv......
-
R v Charlie Pearce – Ruling On Lifting Of Press Restrictions
...press restrictions in R v. Markham and Edwards (8th December 2016, Nottingham Crown Court) which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in [2017] EWCA Crim 739 (President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, Blake and Lewis JJ). The Defendants in that Stan Lucas Markahm and Kim Edwa......
-
Towards a Principled Legal Response to Children Who Kill
...during pleasure of the Secretary of State. Table of Cases Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531DP v R [2015] NZCA 476Markham and Edwards v R [2017] EWCA Crim 739Miller v Alabama 567 U.S. 460 (2012).R v Bennett HC AK CRI-2009-292-002198 [23 July 2010]R v DP & RP [2015] NZHC 1765R v Rewha-Te Wara HC......