Sheffield schoolboy stabbing: This is why The Star has applied for Harvey Willgoose's murderer to be named
The teenage boy who murdered 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose has now been convicted of the gravest of crimes.
Jurors rejected the defendant’s account that his actions when he stabbed Harvey twice - using severe force to inflict a fatal wound to his heart - amounted to manslaughter, when they found him guilty of murder on Friday last week.
The defendant carried out the stabbing during an incident in the courtyard of All Saints Catholic High School, where both boys were pupils, a few minutes into the lunch break on Monday, February 3, 2025.
He will now receive the mandatory life sentence the offence of murder carries, meaning that no matter what minimum term is passed or how much time the defendant ultimately spends behind bars, he will remain on licence for the remainder of his days.
But due to a reporting restriction placed on the case because of the boy’s young age, the press - and the public - are currently unable to name him. As it currently stands, the restriction protecting his identity is due to expire when the defendant turns 18.
As the trial got underway, the judge, Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, amended a reporting restriction to allow the press to report that both Harvey and the defendant were pupils at All Saints, after it was argued that having to omit that detail would result in a significant and unreasonable restriction on reporting.
Shortly after the jury were first sent out to consider their verdict on Tuesday morning (August 5, 2025) The Star sent an application to Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, requesting that the restriction protecting the boy’s identity be lifted completely - allowing him to be named for the first time.
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen is now set to make a ruling on the application to lift the reporting restriction on October 22, 2025. The boy will be sentenced for Harvey’s murder that same day.
Whilst we wait to learn both what the minimum term of the life sentence handed to Harvey’s murderer will be - and if our bid to lift the restriction has been successful - here are the reasons why we believe the defendant should be named.
Unbalanced representation
Through no fault of his, it has been possible to report Harvey Willgoose’s name from the outset of this tragic case. The type of reporting restrictions typically used to protect the identity of children no longer apply once someone has died.
During the course of the trial, a number of claims were made by the defendant.
They included the claim that Harvey used pejorative slurs towards the defendant, and detailed of a number of threats of violence he was alleged to have made, along with the suggestion he sided with a prejudiced bully.
The press are required to present a balanced view of both sides of a trial, both prosecution and defence.
This means that those claims were aired in public in reports of the trial.
Given the nature of these claims, it is likely Harvey’s reputation may have been tarnished in the minds of right-thinking members of society.
Just because the defendant has now been found guilty of Harvey’s murder, it does not necessarily detract from, or cancel out, the damage caused to Harvey’s character during the trial.
Given the high-profile nature of the case, and the fact the defendant has now been convicted of murder, The Star feels it would be unjust and disproportionate for the defendant’s name to continue to be protected for the first years of his life sentence - while the Willgoose family have to live with the damage caused to Harvey’s reputation.
Deterrent
Reflecting the views of many in our community, The Star is extremely concerned about the level of knife crime in the city, following a number of serious, and in some cases fatal, stabbings.
During the course of the five-week trial, which concluded on Friday (August 8) when the jury convicted the defendant of Harvey’s murder, the ease with which children and young people are able to obtain weapons including knives was laid bare.
The defendant told the jury of eight women and four men that he bought both the hunting knife he used to kill Harvey with and another knife modelled on one used in the combat video game Assassin’s Creed online using his parents’ bank card.
He also claimed that he was able to buy an axe from a fellow pupil at All Saints Catholic High School.
The Star feels that publicising the defendant’s name, given the grave nature of this case, may act as a deterrent to stop incidents of this nature taking place in the future.
It would also highlight that juveniles who choose to use knives are likely to face extremely serious consequences, similar to those passed down to adult defendants.
Serious nature of the defendant’s conviction
In the application we made to Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, The Star argued that the defendant should be named, irrespective of the murder verdict returned by the jury, given that the defendant had pleaded guilty to Harvey’s manslaughter and a further charge of possessing a bladed article on school premises prior to the trial beginning.
However, now that he has been convicted of murder - the most serious of crimes - for which he will have to receive the mandatory life sentence Parliament says must be passed down, we believe the application should now be given greater weight.
The jury was able to look past the defendant’s young age to convict him of murder and if the crime of murder is not deemed a serious enough conviction to warrant the removal of a reporting restriction, what offence could possibly meet that criteria?
Length of sentence likely to be passed
Now the defendant has been convicted of murder, given its grave nature, and the mandatory life sentence which will have to be imposed, it is likely he will receive a minimum term of several years.
The defendant denied murder, and was convicted after a trial. And so while the sentence passed down to him is likely to be adjusted to reflect his young age, he will not be entitled to any credit for his plea, to be taken off the total length of his minimum term.
During his time in custody, the defendant is likely to receive help to rehabilitate himself.
The publication of his name is therefore unlikely to affect him as much as it would if he were to remain in the community.
It is also less likely to have as much of an impact on the defendant, if his name is first made public towards the beginning of his sentence, as opposed to when he turns 18, many months on from his sentencing hearing when the work towards rehabilitation is likely to have begun.
Impact on the community
This was a notorious crime that shocked and appalled many, both in Sheffield and across the country.
The Star believes naming the defendant will help to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system because the coverage is likely to have more impact if it includes full details of all parties involved.