The boy convicted of the murder of 17-year-old Charlie Cosser can be named today as Yura Varybrus.
A judge has lifted reporting restrictions that protected the identity of Varybrus who faces being detained at His Majesty’s pleasure – the equivalent of a life sentence for a youth.
Charlie died after Varybrus stabbed him at a party in Warnham, Horsham, in July last year.
At Brighton Crown Court, Judge Christine Henson said: “On Tuesday 4 June 2024 Yura Varybrus was convicted of murder and having an article with a blade or point.
“The offending related to a stabbing that occurred at a private party in Warnham in July last year. It was attended by up to 200 young people.
“Just before midnight on the dance floor in the marquee a fight broke out between Charlie Cosser and Yura Varybrus.
“The jury found that they were sure Yura had possession of a bladed article and stabbed Charlie … one of the three wounds was fatal.
“The jury were sure Yura had not been acting in lawful self-defence at the time.
“The jury were sure at the time Yura intended to kill or cause really serious injury to Charlie.
“Charlie collapsed around one minute later and shortly thereafter went into cardiac arrest. He received medical intervention including open heart surgery on the roadside. He never regained consciousness and died two days later.
“At the time of the trial Yura was 17 and therefore the (reporting restriction under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) applied to him.
“During the trial, the section 45 restriction remained in place for Yura. There was an order which also protected witnesses under 18.
“Following conviction, I set a timetable for written submissions following Press Association media and Sunday Times written applications for the court to make an excepting direction to dispense with the reporting restrictions imposed under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in regard to Yura.
“I am satisfied that all parties have had the opportunity to provide written submissions and to make oral submissions if they wished today. This has included the (West Sussex County Council) youth offending team. The Criminal Procedure Rules part 6 and 6B has been complied with.
“The application is made under section 45(5) on the ground that it is in the public interest to remove the reporting restriction.
“It is accepted by all parties that the imposition of reporting restrictions is a direct inference with open justice and the (European Convention on Human Rights) article 10 rights of the media and public.
“It is accepted that the power to restrict reporting of young people is discretionary and restrictions must be ‘proportionate, going no further than is necessary to meet the relevant objective’.
“The court is concerned with the competing principles of open justice and freedom of expression on the one hand and on the other the privacy and welfare of the young person in question. Age alone is not sufficient to justify continued reporting restrictions.
“In coming to my decision, I have considered the Judicial College guidance, the section itself and Criminal Procedure Rules part 6 and 6B as well as authorities within both press written submissions and R v KL (2021) EWCA Crim 200 and the authorities referred to within it. Paragraph 67, in particular, of that judgment has been helpful.
“The court is tasked with balancing the competing claims of privacy, a child’s welfare and open justice.
“The authorities are clear that very great weight must be given to the welfare of a child or young person and the potential damage of public identification as a criminal before becoming an adult.
“Those representing Yura do not wish the restriction to be lifted. The court must not lift a restriction to ‘name and shame’ as additional punishment.
“I have reminded myself that the power to dispense with an order for anonymity must be exercised with very great care caution and circumspection.
“In coming to my decision, I have considered the following
- This is a case that is a particularly grave crime and has attracted substantial national and local interest. The level of youth crime in this case is likely to be of significant public interest at a private party attended by many young people.
- Charlie Cosser’s death has shocked a community and the family have set up a charity to fight against knife crime. Disclosure may aid the local community in coming to terms with this incident.
- The consideration of acting as a deterrent in future knife crime of young people is a proper objective of press reporting to act as a deterrent to others. The potential deterrent nature for others in identification in this case is a crucial part in satisfying the public interest and public protection in homicide cases.
- Particularly in the context of the too frequent loss of young life as a result of knife crime. The lifting of the restriction promotes public confidence in justice and the interests of the public receiving fair, accurate and unrestricted reporting of such crimes.
“During evidence in the trial, the court heard that Yura and other boys under 18 have been named in social media as those responsible by some. It is highly likely the identity of Yura is already in the public domain.
“Should the restriction remain there is a risk of inaccurate/wrong identification of the attacker and unnecessary speculation.
“I have balanced this against … the defence submissions and current press coverage and impact on Yura and his family. It is accepted by the defence anonymity will be lifted on Saturday 9 November 2024 in any event.
“The court can consider the restriction is lifted in part, such as name of the defendant, photograph or footage and antecedent history but not address or school.
“Balancing the competing interests, I am satisfied it is now in the interests of justice to lift restrictions in regard to Yura.
“This relaxation of the restriction should not include details of Yura’s address prior to detention or address of his immediate family to limit impact on his sibling. It should not include details of where he is to be detained.
“I am satisfied the effect of the current restriction imposes a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of proceedings and that it is in the public interest to relax the restriction. In coming to my decision, I have had regard to the welfare of Yura.
“I have reminded myself that the restrictions will lapse within six months as Yura will be 18 on Saturday 9 November 2024.
“He will still be in detention as part of his sentence for a considerable period after that time has elapsed and therefore the lifting of the restriction would have limited impacted on the rehabilitative process. The views of the youth offending team have been sought.
“As Yura will be in a custodial setting, he will be shielded in large degree from any adverse publicity that may flow from him being named. By the time of release there is likely to be little or no media coverage.”
