Will Cornick Sentence Disproportionate? Alistair Webster QC disagrees

Will Cornick sentence disproportionate, say youth justice campaigners

Lawyers and youth justice campaigners have clashed over whether the 20-year minimum tariff given to the 16-year-old schoolboy who murdered teacher Ann Maguire is disproportionate.

Will Cornick was given an indeterminate sentence this week after pleading guilty to stabbing the 61-year-old teacher in a Spanish class at Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds in April.

Mr Justice Coulson, passing sentence at Leeds crown court, warned Cornick that he might never be released from prison.

Cornick will not be eligible to apply for parole until he is 36 unless he applies to the high court to have his minimum tariff reduced. To be successful he would have to show “clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress” in his rehabilitation.

Psychiatrists who assessed the boy after the attack said he demonstrated “psychopathic tendencies” and could kill again.

Penelope Gibbs, who chairs the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) umbrella group of charities and campaign groups, said Cornick’s sentence was too long and more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation.

She said: “I don’t think a child – and he was a child – should get a life sentence, because they are young, their brain is not mature and a life sentence is indeterminate, it could last forever. I think no other western European country would impose a life sentence on a teenager.

“Do we want him to be rehabilitated? Do we want him to leave prison the lowest risk possible of causing more harm to others? Yes. How long do we need to achieve that, rather than how long do we need to punish him for? We do need to punish him but I think to punish him for longer than he’s been alive for is disproportionate.”

Alistair Webster QC, head of Lincoln House chambers in Manchester, said he did not think the minimum tariff was out of line with the sentences given to other child murderers.

“It’s clearly severe,” he said. “But it’s intended to be. In 2006 I prosecuted a case involving a 15-year-old called Michael Hamer, who pleaded guilty to killing an 11-year-old boy with cystic fibrosis after luring him his house with a faked letter from a teacher. Hamer was 14 at the time of the crime. He had mental health issues but his minimum tariff was increased by the court of appeal from 12 to 15 years.

“There are a number of factors which seem to make this case even more serious, such as the evidence of premeditation and the fact Cornick killed the teacher in front of so many other children. The reality is that we don’t see many child murderers, so they do present particular difficulties for the criminal justice system.”

He said the system recognised that juvenile offenders ought to be treated differently from adults, as the minimum tariff for under-18s who commit murder was 12 rather than 25 years. According to the Sentencing Council, this is because “young people may be more receptive to changing the way they conduct themselves and be able to respond more quickly to interventions” and “should be given greater opportunity to learn from their mistakes”.

It is believed that the last time a juvenile was given a 20-year minimum tariff was in 2011, when a 16-year-old thought to be Britain’s youngest contract killer was jailed for shooting dead a young mother for £200. Santre Sanchez Gayle was told he must serve at least 20 years behind bars for the murder of Gulistan Subasi, 26, in Hackney, east London, in March 2010.

In exceptional cases, a juvenile convicted of murder can apply to the high court to have their minimum tariff reduced. Case law says the defendant must demonstrate “clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress”.

Last month Mr Justice Wilkie knocked a year off the 12-year tariff given to Jordan Lucinda Jobson, who was 15 when she murdered an 18-year-old woman called Samantha Madgin in 2007 by stabbing her with a kitchen knife. The judge said Jobson had changed from a “wild and immature 15-year-old” into a “young adult who shows every sign of being mature, highly motivated, and responsible”.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said the justice system needed a rethink to focus on reparation rather than retribution. She said: “This is an exceptionally long sentence handed down in quite exceptional circumstances. It raises important questions about what is a just and proportionate penalty for such a terrible crime perpetrated by a child in front of other children.

“A much-loved teacher is dead – can there ever be any possibility of atonement or rehabilitation? Can you condemn the crime without condemning forever the boy who committed it? A system based on reparation rather than retribution could lead to fairer more hopeful outcomes.”

Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of the charity Victim Support said: “We believe it is essential when passing sentence that judges and magistrates consider the impact on the victim or the victim’s family, not just the nature of the offence. Victims, the bereaved and the public need to understand the reasons why a particular sentence has been handed down, and therefore good communication is key.

“To maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system it is vital that offenders are appropriately punished, that serious and violent crimes are dealt with robustly and that offenders are properly rehabilitated so they don’t go on to commit more crime.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/04/will-cornick-sentence-youth-justice