THE identities of two boys who stabbed a man to death in his own home were published for the first time this week after a senior judge lifted reporting restrictions.

Jack James Hindley, 17 and of Christchurch, and Samuel Roy Jones, 17 and of Bournemouth, have been named and pictured following an application to the court by the Daily Echo.

This request was made after the teenagers were found guilty of the murder of 35-year-old Edward Reeve.

As reported, the defendants left Mr Reeve bleeding to death in his home in Heath Road Walkford on New Year’s Eve last year.

Trial and sentencing judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Sweeney, read and heard submissions from the Daily Echo and defence counsel following the jury’s verdicts back in July and this week at Winchester Crown Court.

After taking time to consider his judgement, he gave a detailed summary of these submissions before delivering his conclusion in the balancing exercise.

Read our full coverage on the outcome of the trial

The Honourable Mr Justice Sweeney made the remarks on the reporting restriction which he made in open court available to the press in full in written form. They can be found below.

Jack and Sam are currently the subject of a joint Order under section 45(3) of the Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“the YJCEA” ) which I made (around the start of their trial) on 7 July 2022 - forbidding the reporting of any matter that is likely to identify them as a person concerned in these proceedings.

After the conclusion of the trial, I heard initial submissions in relation to a written application, made on the requisite notice, on behalf of the Bournemouth Daily Echo, supported and endorsed by the New Milton Advertiser and the Lymington Times, for an excepting direction under section 45(4) and/or section 45 (5) of the YJCEA which would effectively revoke the section 45(3) Order.

In the result, I adjourned both consideration of the excepting direction application and sentence until yesterday, and ordered the preparation of a PSR in relation to each defendant – to include consideration of whether the reporting of his identity would cause him any harm or adversely affect his future rehabilitation.

Those reports are now before the Court. I have also had the benefit, yesterday, of oral submissions from the parties, and of other reports to which I shall refer.

...

Section 45 of the YJCEA variously provides that:

“………

(3) The court may direct that no matter relating to any person concerned in the proceedings shall, while he is under the age of 18, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person concerned in the proceedings.

(4) The court or an appellate court may also by direction (“an excepting direction”) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a direction under subsection (3), if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

(5) The court or an appellate court may also by direction (“an excepting direction”) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed under subsection (3) if it is satisfied -

(a) that their effect is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of proceedings, and

(b) that it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction; But no restricting direction shall be given under this subsection by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned.

(6) When deciding whether to make –

(a) a direction under subsection (3) in relation to a person; or

(b) an excepting direction under subsection (4) or (5) by virtue of which the restriction imposed by the direction under subsection (3) would be dispensed with (to any extent) in relation to a person

The court or (as the case may be) the appellate court shall have regard to the welfare of that person.

……..”

Section 52 of the YJCEA gives further guidance in relation to what is in the public interest, as follows:

“(1) Where for the purpose of any provision of this Chapter it falls to a court to determine whether anything is (or, as the case may be, was) in the public interest, the court must have regard, in particular, to the matter referred to in subsection (2) (in so far as relevant).

(2) Those matters are –

(a) the interest in each of the following –

(i) the open reporting of crime,

(ii) the open reporting of matters relating to human health or safety, and

(iii) the prevention and exposure of miscarriages of justice;

(b) the welfare of any person in relation to whom the relevant restrictions imposed by or under this Chapter apply or would apply (or, as the case may be, applied); and

(c) any views expressed -

(i) by an appropriate person on behalf of a person within paragraph (b) who is under the age of 16 (“the protected person”), or

(ii) by a person within that paragraph who has attained that age

………..”

I have variously been referred to, and have considered, a number of authorites.

In Kl, Dame Victoria Sharp P., giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) said, at paras 65 – 67:

“65. We start by setting out in brief the legal principles which govern the making of such directions and the principles applied in by the Divisional Court in public law reviews.

66. As to the legal principles, they were comprehensively considered in Markham [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 30, paras 73-90 and in Aziz [2020] EMLR 5 paras 30-40 [sic] and are now well established. They have been developed taking full account of Convention case law and other international law obligations of the UK. The international dimension relating to the protection of children is given significant weight in the domestic law balancing exercise and there is no need to recite the international law materials in every case where the issue arises: Markham at para 80.

67. Drawing upon those two decisions, the relevant principles may be summarised as follows:

(1) The general approach to be taken is that reports of proceedings in open court should not be restricted unless there are reasons to do so which outweigh the legitimate interests of the public in receiving fair and accurate reports of criminal proceedings and in knowing the identity of those in the community who have been guilty of criminal conduct.

(2) The fact that the person before the court is a child or young person will normally be a good reason for restricting reports of the proceedings in the way permitted by the legislation; and it will only be in rare cases that a direction under section 45(3) of the 1999 Act will not be given or, having been given, will be discharged.

(3) The reason why removal of a restriction will be rare is the very great weight that the court must give to the welfare of a child or young person. In practical terms, this means that the power to dispense with anonymity must be exercised with very great care, cauton and circumspection. See the guidance given by Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in the context of the 1933 Act in McKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices [2001] EMLR 5, para 17.

(4) However, the welfare of the child or young person will not always trump other considerations. Even in the Youth Court, where the regime requires that proceedings should be held in private, with the public excluded, the court has power to lift restrictions. When a juvenile is tried on indictment in the Crown Court there is a strong presumption that justice takes place in open court and the press may report the proceedings.

(5) The decision for the trial judge is a case-specific and discretionary assessment where, guided by the above considerations, a balance falls to be struck between the interests of the child and the wider public interest in open justice and unrestricted reporting.

(6) When considering a challenge to an excepting direction made by the Crown Court by way of judicial review, the Divisional Court will respect the trial judge’s assessment of the weight to be given to particular factors, interfering only where an error of principle is identified or the decision is plainly wrong: see Aziz [2020] EMLR 5, para 36.

(7) To this standard public law approach must be added the conventional public law requirements that: (i) a fair process should be adopted by the judge in considering an application remove a restriction; and (ii) the judge should give reasons sufficient to explain why the balance has come down in favour of removal of the restriction. This latter point is particularly important because the judge’s reasons are the only indicator that the parties (and a reviewing court) will have to satisfy themselves that the judge has indeed performed a lawful balancing exercise.

On behalf of the Bournemouth Daily Echo it is submitted that, by lifting reporting restrictions, the Court would send a strong message to the community that grave offending of this type will not be tolerated. It is pointed out that the relevant Judicial College Guideline states that among the public interests to be taken into account when deciding whether to lift reporting restrictions is “the valuable deterrent effect that the identification of those guilty of at least serious crime may have on others”, which echoes the words of Simon Brown LJ (as he then was) in R v Winchester Crown Court ex p B when he said: “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 served as a deterrent to others. These deterrents are proper objectives for the court to seek”.

Further, it is submitted that the fact that the defendants are now respectively only 11 months and 7 months shy of their 18th birthdays (when the current order expires by law) is a highly relevant factor to be weighed in the balancing exercise.

It is underlined (albeit that this is an extremely serious case) that the authorities make clear that it is not necessary for a case to be exceptionally serious or exceptional on its facts before an excepting direction can be made, and that the CPS guidance recognises that there is a strong public interest in favour of lifting an order under section 45 where a person has been convicted (as in this case) of a serious offence which undermines the public’s confidence in the safety of their communities.

Bournemouth Echo:

In Jack’s case I have his PSR, an Education Report (which indicates that he has made an encouraging start to his studies), and a letter from him (expressing his intention to change and remorse for what he has done).

The author of the PSR assesses that Jack’s physical risks are low in custody, that there is no evidence to suggest that he is at risk from others, and nothing to indicate concern as to risks to himself, with more support being provided during the sentencing exercise. It is recorded that when asked for his own view about his name being reported now, Jack appeared to be indifferent and was more concerned about his family’s reputation and safety (albeit that they have moved from where they were living at the time of the murder). The author opines that it is unlikely that the immediate lifting of restrictions will have a detrimental effect in the long term – although he might be inadvertently affected if his family were to be targeted or endangered – possibly hindering the rehabilitative process.

On Jack’s behalf it is underlined that each case must be considered on its own facts, that the public interest in in the open reporting of crime must be balanced against the welfare of the child defendant (which, in the context of a high profile case, cannot but be adversely affected), and (rightly) that it is well established that the name of a young defendant should not be published in order to punish them further – see e.g. Markham

It is submitted that the current Order has not imposed a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, which have been comprehensively covered in detail by the local media, including by live tweeting.

It is further submitted that the publishing of the defendants’ names will have no further deterrent effect as the story of the dangers of drugs and knives has been, and can be, told in full without naming them.

Finally, it is submitted that keeping Jack’s anonymity until he reaches 18, by which time the news storm will have passed, will help him to live a more normal life when he is finally released, will assist in his rehabilitation, and will reduce the impact on his family (his sister is 20 and is part way through university).

In Sam’s case I have his PSR, his Educational Report, a letter from him, together with a Modern-Day Slavery and Human trafficking report (which refers, amongst other things, to a positive finding that he has been the subject of Criminal Exploitation, that in January 2021, when he was arrested for other offences, he was a vulnerable young person and seen as naïve when compared with others in his friendship group, and that he has had a volatile home life); a Psychological Report (which indicated, amongst other things, that he suffers from a Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which severely limits his ability to exercise self-control; and a Psychiatric report (the author of which concluded, amongst other things, that there was no current evidence of mental disorder). I also have a letter from Sam’s father saying that he holds himself responsible for bad parenting and that his son is a good kid.

The Educational Report indicates that Sam has also made an encouraging start to his studies. In his letter, Sam now admits that he was involved in the murder (but not to the extent that the prosecution asserted), and asserts that he wants to change his life around and that he is remorseful.

The PSR confirms that Sam now accepts involvement in the murder, saying that he went to the house to ask Mr Reeve about rumours in relation to him and girls*, and that he has expressed some remorse.

The author records that, when asked for his views, as to whether reporting his identity would cause him any harm or adversely affect his future rehabilitation, Sam was not concerned for himself, but rather (whether his name is disclosed now or when he is 18) for his family, who may experience a backlash. The author opines that, from a rehabilitation point of view reporting of his identity could have a detrimental impact when he is released.

On Sam’s behalf reliance was placed on his vulnerabilities, as described in the reports, together with the conclusive finding that he has been the subject of criminal exploitation, and the fact that he still faces other criminal proceedings in the Youth Court which might be unfairly prejudiced if his name is reported in this case - though the frailty of the latter proposition was acknowledged during the course of argument. It was also submitted that reporting could go beyond what was germane.

After conviction, it was submitted on behalf of Sam that the reporting restrictions should not be lifted or, in the alternative, that if they were to be lifted it should be done once sentence was passed. Yesterday, it was clarified that the objection is maintained.

It was underlined that there had been full reports of the proceedings during the course of the trial, including reports in real time, which had included extensive reports on the internet and in social media. Further, that this is not a case of murder in public, and the revelation of the defendants’ names would not assist in giving further understanding, and nor would it add to the deterrent effect of the reporting – given that it was already clear from the reporting that those who commit such offences will be prosecuted and punished, with youth being no bar.

On behalf of the prosecution the basic principles were helpfully underlined, including that:

1. It is for the Defence to satisfy the court that there is good reason to continue the restriction.

2. The court should identify the factors that would favour restriction, and the factors that would favour no restriction.

3. The Court should balance the interests of the public in the full reporting of criminal proceedings against the desirability of not causing harm to a child concerned in the proceedings – including giving considerable weight to the age of the defendant (though age alone is not sufficient to justify imposing an Order) and to the potential damage to any young person by public identification.

4. Although not in itself a basis to make an excepting direction, the weight to be given to a child’s welfare may change after there has been a conviction, particularly in a serious case and there is a legitimate public interest on knowing the outcome of proceedings in Court and the potential deterrent effect in the conduct of others in the disgrace accompanying the identification of those guilty of serious crimes.

As to the finding, in Sam’s case, of criminal exploitation, the Court should have in mind that on two separate occasions he has told his social worker that he lied about that so as to receive a lesser sentence.

This, it was submitted, is a very serious case in relation to which the public interest favours open reporting , and in which (given the expiry of the Order in 11 months and 7 months respectively) it is legitimate for the Court to ask itself whether the benefit to the defendants of the remaining time outweighs the public interest in open reporting.

In addition, the parents of those with whom the defendants were involved may have no idea of the behaviour of those with whom their children were associating, and there is a public interest in them becoming so aware.

I turn, after considering the issue with the requisite great care, caution and circumspection, to the balancing exercise.

The circumstances have changed considerably since I imposed the Order.

I must continue to, and do, give great weight to the welfare of the defendants.

However, that is tempered by the fact that the Order must cease on their 18th birthdays (respectively now 11 months and 7 months away) and there is no evidence, beyond some speculation, that removal of the restriction now would have any adverse effect upon either of them - whether physically or in relation to their rehabilitation. Equally, there is no evidence, again beyond some speculation, of any likely material adverse effect on their families.

On the other hand, this is a dreadful case involving two areas of legitimate public concern – namely the carrying of knives in public by young men, followed by the use of the knives to cause death or serious injury, and people being attacked in their own homes.

This is therefore a case in which, against the background of the public interest in the open reporting of criminal proceedings, it is very strongly in the public interest that such conduct be deterred, which can best be achieved by full reporting at the time of sentence.

Accordingly, in my view, there is now significantly greater weight in the public interest in open justice and unrestricted reporting than in the interest of these defendants, and therefore I make an excepting direction under section 45(4) of the YJCEA.

*During the trial it was heard the defendants branded Mr Reeve as a "paedo" - there has never been any suggestion that he ever showed such an interest in under age girls.

If you are interested in court and crime news, stay up to date with all our latest updates in our dedicated Facebook group. To find out more and to join click here.