Cornick, R. v

On 28 April 2014 the applicant, then aged 15, stabbed Mrs Ann Maguire, a 61 year old Spanish teacher at Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds. As a result of the wounds inflicted, Mrs Maguire died in hospital shortly thereafter.

On 3 November 2014 in the Crown Court at Leeds before Coulson J the applicant pleaded guilty to murder. The judge was by law required to pass a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. He fixed the minimum term at 20 years (less time spent in custody on remand). The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred to the full court by the Registrar. It seems to us appropriate that we should grant leave. It is right that, in a case which has wholly exceptional features and relates to such a young offender, the full court should have the opportunity to review the entire matter.

The appellant was born on 26 June 1998. He entered Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds in September 2009. By April 2014 he was in Year 11 and studying for his GCSE examinations. He had taken and passed several exams a year early. His school reports had generally been positive.

It is important to point out that his parents were described as entirely responsible and caring. They had no explanation for what happened on 28 April 2014. The appellant's family life had been marked by love and support. His school records show that he had been happy and bright at nursery, had made good progress at primary school where the records described him as helpful, considerate and polite; he had a positive attitude to learning. In his first year at Corpus Christi, the school wrote to his parents congratulating him on his good effort and his academic progress. He was seen as reserved but amicable; he formed good friendships and benefited socially as well as academically from his studies at school. There were five recorded incidents of misbehaviour at school. The first two were minor. We shall turn to the other incidents in due course as they relate to events that occurred shortly before the murder.

Much of the appellant's life seems to have changed at the age of 12 when he was diagnosed with diabetes whilst on holiday. This appears to have had a major impact on his lifestyle, his mood and his personality, although he continued to maintain his good academic performance and his keen intellectual ability.

About one year after the diagnosis of diabetes, it became apparent to other pupils in the school that the appellant had developed a hatred of Spanish lessons and of Mrs Maguire as the Spanish teacher. He told more than one pupil that he hated her and wanted her dead.

On Christmas Eve and during the early hours of Christmas Day 2013 the appellant exchanged messages with a friend on "Facebook". In those messages he spoke of brutally killing Mrs Maguire and spending the rest of his life in jail so as not to have to worry about life or money. He claimed to hear voices. That was something, which he was later to assert, as a result of which he would receive what he described as "comfy wall". That is an important element of the premeditated nature of what he did. He continued to make threats towards Mrs Maguire on Facebook in early January 2014.

In February 2014 the appellant failed to do his Spanish homework. Mrs Maguire told him that in consequence he could not attend a school bowling trip. The appellant disobeyed her and went anyway.

As a result, on 10 February 2014 the appellant was spoken to by another teacher. The appellant indicated his dislike of Spanish and of Mrs Maguire. Mrs Maguire joined the meeting and expressed concern about the appellant. He then stood up and left the meeting.

On the following day there was a meeting at the school with the appellant's parents. The appellant made it clear that he hated Mrs Maguire. He was placed on internal exclusion at the school for a day. Later that month in further Facebook messages he made it clear that in his view Mrs Maguire deserved more than death, more than pain, and more than torture.

The murder of Mrs Maguire occurred on Monday 28 April 2014. On the weekend before nothing untoward occurred at home which alerted his family to what was about to happen. However, the appellant told Dr Kent, one of the psychiatrists who later examined him, that he had decided on Thursday 24 April to kill her and had rejected the alternative that he had been considering of killing himself. On Sunday 27 April (the day before the murder) he considered the weapons he should use and how he should kill her. He decided that he would use a knife and that he would kill her at school in circumstances where he would be caught and sent to jail.

During the morning of 28 April 2014 the appellant told pupils that he was armed with knives. He showed them to some and said that he intended to attack Mrs Maguire. Some thought he was not serious. Those who thought he was serious received threats from him that he would kill them if they revealed his plan. He told another pupil that he had brought alcohol with him in order to celebrate after the killing.

Shortly after the mid-morning break, at about 11.30am, the appellant attended Mrs Maguire's Spanish lesson. At an early stage in the lesson he went into an adjoining room to work on computers as part of the lesson. He showed the knife he had brought to one of the pupils. He then got up from that room and walked into the adjacent room where Mrs Maguire was leaning over, looking at the work of one of the other pupils. The appellant approached her from behind. He began to stab her in the neck and back. He was about a foot taller than her and of substantially greater build. The knife he used was a large kitchen knife. Mrs Maguire fled, but she was pursued by the appellant. He stabbed her as she sought to escape. Eventually, she was able to enter another room while another member of staff bravely prevented the appellant from continuing his attack.

Paramedics were called to attend Mrs Maguire. She was taken to hospital. However, she died at 1.10pm.

Following the stabbing, the appellant returned to his classroom. He sat down beside a pupil as if nothing had happened. He said that he had stabbed Mrs Maguire. He added that it was a pity that she was not dead. The evidence of fellow pupils was that he was pleased with what he had done. When two members of staff came in for him, he put up his hands and went with them peaceably. His bag was examined. It was found to contain a bottle of Jack Daniels bourbon and a second knife. Whilst waiting for the police to arrive, he chatted as if nothing had happened.

The appellant gave no explanation to the police when he was interviewed, but he told Dr Kent that the killing had been on his mind since Year 8. He had always told his friends that Mrs Maguire was terrible. He explained that he had wanted to apply to join the army, but he was rejected because of his diabetes. He knew what he had done and he did not care. He had no remorse. He said, "As generations of life, killing is a route of survival. It's kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide". He added later that he did not care that Mrs Maguire's family would be upset. In his eyes everything he had done was "fine and dandy".

The pathologist's evidence showed the brutality of the attack. The appellant had stabbed Mrs Maguire seven times to the neck and upper back. One stab caused the knife to pass all the way through her lower neck. Another severed the jugular vein. Two other stabs shattered her ribs. They must, therefore, have been inflicted with severe force. One penetrated the right lung.

The sentencing judge had before him three reports provided by the prosecution: one from Dr Kent, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Stockton Hall Hospital, Yorkshire; one from Dr Cesar Lengua, a Consultant Psychiatrist in the field of Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry working for the Northern Forensic Mental Health Service for Young People, and a Clinical Lecturer at the University of Newcastle; and a clinical psychology report from Dr Tim Diggle, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist at the Northern Forensic Mental Health Service for Young People.

Dr Kent's conclusion was that the applicant had an adjustment disorder which had affected the development of his personality. He believed that the appellant had a personality disorder with marked psychopathic traits. He considered that the appellant was a serious risk of grave homicidal violence to the public for the foreseeable future. He considered that the disorders from which the appellant suffered did not give rise in any way to a defence of diminished responsibility.

Dr Lengua essentially agreed with Dr Kent's conclusions. He could not exclude the possibility that the appellant would kill again. He also was of the firm view that there was no defence of diminished responsibility.

Dr Diggle concluded that the appellant had made Mrs Maguire a repository for his angry feelings which, because of his personality and his ability to cope, built up in severity. His angry feelings, combined with some of the cognitive symptoms associated with low mood, led to a narrowing of his thinking and deciding on a false choice between Mrs Maguire and himself. Again, there was nothing in his view that gave rise to a defence of diminished responsibility.

It is clear on that evidence that the appellant was fit to plead and that there was no possible defence of diminished responsibility.

The appellant appeared in court on 2 May 2014, a few days after the murder. Mr Wright QC, who has appeared on his behalf throughout, indicated at that hearing that it was unlikely there would be any dispute about the killing. At a further hearing on 11 July 2014 it was accepted that the killing had been carried out by the appellant and that it was unlawful. The only issue, therefore, was whether a defence of diminished responsibility would arise. It is important to make clear, as the prosecution accept, that Mr Wright QC and his team acted completely responsibly. At the first available opportunity the fact that the killing was accepted to be unlawful was acknowledged. That was an unequivocal statement, not a mere indication which would not have been enough.

The second issue that arises is the position taken by the defence on the psychiatric evidence. They instructed Dr Vizard, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and Expert in Child Psychiatry at University College London. She put forward the view that the appellant suffered from a delusional disorder, had acted in a blind rage at the time of the killing, and that therefore there might be a defence of diminished responsibility.

It is clear on the facts, as has been accepted, that that view was wholly unsustainable. Again, we commend the responsible attitude of the defence in stating that that opinion was unsustainable. Accordingly, after receipt of that report and the Crown's psychiatric evidence a plea of guilty to murder was tendered. We shall return to those two matters when we give our decision.

In addition to considering the evidence to which we have referred, the sentencing judge also considered the extremely moving personal statements from Mrs Maguire's husband, children, sisters and brothers-in-law. We, too, have read these. There can be no doubt about the devastation that her murder has caused to the family. Mrs Maguire's devoted service in schools endured over many years.

Having reviewed all the evidence, including the psychiatric evidence, the judge concluded that there were seven significant aggravating factors:

The judge identified three mitigating factors:

Under paragraph 7 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the judge adopted the statutory minimum starting point of twelve years. He considered that the aggravating factors more than doubled that statutory starting point to a term of 25 years. From that he proceeded to deduct two years for the plea of guilty, and a further three years because of the appellant's youth and adjustment disorder. The judge gave no separate reduction for the previous good character as in his view that was a function of the appellant's youth. He therefore arrived at the minimum term of 20 years.

In the written submissions that have been put before us and in the eloquent submissions made today by Mr Wright QC, three points have been made. First, it is said that, looked at in the round, the aggravating factors did not justify an increase in the minimum term to 25 years. Second, it is said that the judge did not give sufficient credit for the guilty plea; that maximum credit should have been given. Thirdly, it is said that the judge should have taken into account the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions and should have given greater weight to his youth in arriving at the overall term. It is submitted that had those factors been taken into account, although a minimum term significantly in excess of twelve years would have been imposed, the judge would not have imposed a term of 20 years.

We have been greatly assisted by Mr Greaney QC on behalf of the Crown, but we can state our conclusions shortly.

As we have indicated, the judge was correct in his identification of each of the aggravating features. In our view the judge arrived at the correct figure of 25 years as a result of those aggravating features. We cannot see any basis on which he could in any way be criticised. He set the matters out with great clarity. The evidence on each of those matters was clear.

We turn to the question of whether the judge was correct in his reduction of that provisional figure by five years, or whether he should have made a greater reduction. There were in our view four matters that the judge had to take into account: first, the appellant's youth; secondly, the fact that he had committed no previous offences. Regrettably, in our society there are many of the appellant's age who have already committed a number of serious offences. Although the appellant was not of entirely good character, we think that some recognition ought to have made for the fact that he had no previous convictions. Thirdly, there was the element (small as it is accepted to be) of the mental disorder. Finally, there was the question of whether proper credit had been given for the guilty plea.

On that last point we are entirely satisfied that the course followed by Mr Wright QC in the indication of the guilty plea was in the circumstances entirely appropriate. It cannot be right, where an offender is aged only 15 or 16, to require him to admit only a few days later the killing and the fact that it was unlawful. In our view there can be no criticism of the fact that that was not formally done until 11 July 2014. We accept that, before the plea to murder was entered, a full examination of the psychiatric evidence had to be undertaken.

However, we do not consider that the appellant was entitled to full credit for the guilty plea. It is plain from the facts and circumstances that we have set out in relation to the killing that the evidence was overwhelming. It seems to us that that follows also in respect of the psychiatric evidence. It cannot be said that if a psychiatrist produces a report that is obviously unsustainable, as Dr Vizard did, that that in any way gives rise to a doubt about the overwhelming nature of the case.

We have looked at each of those four factors in the light of the detailed evidence which we have set out. We consider that, giving due weight to each of those factors, the deduction of five years that the judge made was correct. We then stood back and asked ourselves, taking into account the statutory factors, including the welfare of this young appellant: was this the right and proper sentence? In our view it was. On the disturbing facts of this case the minimum term of 20 years was entirely the right decision, essentially for the reasons given by the judge and those which we have set out in this judgment.

Although we have granted leave to appeal so that this court has been able to give anxious consideration to all the factors in the case, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons we have given.

The court would like to thank both counsel for their great assistance.

Everyone has accepted that this matter should be dealt with in open court and that there are no reporting restrictions.