To think that there should be some consequences for Judge Nicholas Rowland

I was about to post this link. It's a very good listen. Although I still err towards custody, it did make me reconsider. It would have been helpful if the full judgement was published immediately.

@Circe7 I don’t think most posters understand the difference between dc and adults in the criminal justice system. They certainly won’t be going to prison. I’m not sure what assistance they might get after leaving their custodial unit. One would like to think ongoing guidance and monitoring.

They will be out in less than 4 years - the sentence is reduced by time already served and time on curfew, then they will only do 50% of whatever's left.

Part of the issue with wanting more significant sentences is that young offenders institutes are awful places that bring together people who get worse, not better from their time there. If they were genuinely supportive and rehabilitative, then it would be worth sending more children to them. Improving them and prisons would be expensive. I suspect that most of the people who want longer sentences don't want to pay more taxes to fund more prison places or better provision. Nor would they be happy to see NHS and school funding cut to pay for that.

Nicholas Rowland also only imposed a 10 year ban on the boys contacting the victims in any way which the families of both victims have said left them feeling extremely vulnerable. Thankfully with the new sentencing this has now been amended to a Lifetime ban on all contact. Again this is only what it should have been in the first place. 10 years???? WTF was he thinking? 😡

I did wonder if one of the reasons that the sentance was so low is that the boys involved were from the traveller community, and judges are trained through guidence that the traveller community is overrepresented in the prison system, and so equality does not always mean 'the same'.

'Or for example in the criminal justice, the most overrepresented group in the criminal justice system are Gypsey, Roma, Traveller,....understand that context can be different for different ethnic groups.'

David Lammy - equality does not always mean the same

If you look at the sentencing guidelines, the purpose of sentencing adults is:

• the punishment of offenders;
• the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
• the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
• the protection of the public; and
• the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

But when sentencing children the court must have regard to:

• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.

There is a huge difference in how adult and child offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. The guidelines for children emphasis using custodial sentences as a last resort, having regard to learning difficulties and difficult home circumstances and rehabilitation.

I can see why the judge took the approach he did, though I support a custodial sentence being imposed. But judges have to apply the law and relevant guidance regardless of public opinion and there will be differences of opinion between different judges and courts - it is extremely common for a judge’s decision to be reversed by a higher court. It is fundamental to how our justice system works in fact.

I can also see why the public objected so strongly to the initial sentence for such a serious crime.

But in terms of the custodial sentence it doesn’t do much to protect the public. The boys will likely to be out in two years. They are highly unlikely to have been rehabilitated. If anything they might be worse for a couple of years in custody.

But custody for children isn’t the same as custody for adults in any case. Depending on age and vulnerability, they might go to a secure children’s home or training centre rather than a YOI.

I think implying that the judge is a paedophile is really out of order though.

I can tell you having served as an officer in a YOI, that there is a drive to not send young people to jail as the current judiciary think criminalisation of them leads to far worse problems - mental health problems and never able to reinsert themselves into society owing to employers reluctant to give jobs to people with criminal records. I can see the logic of this.

@NoisyHiker Id vote to put people like you in there with them. We absolutely need rehabilitation of children/teens. They were not adults and we are already out of kilter with most decent nations in terms of criminal age for dc. This awful retribution heaped on dc is too much. We all accept there needs to be punishment but what you suggest is it civilised. We should never be that nation.

@JustGiveMeReason a wonderful post which puts things into context which I do not have the words for.

Lots around the sentences being changed.

very little about how absolutely shit the sentences remain.

There's really not all that much flexibility in the guidelines at all for most offences. The judge has to work out the correct category (and will be appealed if the defendant thinks s/he has got it wrong - but often both prosecution and defence agree the category) and then there isn't terribly much wriggle room from there. What little flexibility there is has to be justified by the sentencing judge for any movement upwards or downwards from the starting point specified in the guidelines.

an additional thing beyond the custodial element I found interesting was that the original judge only imposed a 10 year ban on the boys contacting the victims, which the new sentence extended to a lifetime one. To me a lifetime one would seem blatantly obvious - in ten years the girls will still only be in their late 20s, why on earth would they ever want contact with their rapists? And that's not something that would be impacted by prisons being full or anything else.

Perhaps there was some other rationale but in the absence of an explanation, to me it does tend to support the comments that he didn't really consider or care about the impact on the victims.

Quite.
Its not like appeals judges have a different set of guidelines with sentences not available to the first judges.

Somewhere, and I can’t remember where, I read a bit more about this case and the judgement and the information showed that the sentence wasn’t as lenient as it seemed. There were other factors, I wish I could find it or remember.

Not to say it wasn’t right, it just wasn’t quite as outrageously wrong as the headlines suggest.

Then it needs changing.

The amount of reoffending, especially in sexual crimes, is ridiculously high. These animals are let out again and again to terrorise the innocent.

Fuck 'rehabilitation'. The only way to keep the public safe is to lock criminals away from society, where they can't hurt people.

It doesn't matter 'why' the crime was committed. Low IQ, bad home life, mental issues, doesn't matter to the victims.

Shove them in 20 to a small room with a bucket in the corner, then we will have enough space.

So you've dug out one case from 6y ago to somehow show a pattern to his sentencing.

He's been a full time judge for 12y according to the internet. He sentences literally hundreds of people every year. Probably somewhere in the region of 6000 people in his career, and that's ignoring the many years he probably sat as a part time judge before.

He may be soft on VAWG, he may be soft on everything. Or he may not. Picking out a few individual cases out of thousands is meaningless.

100%

10 counts of rape apparently - should be a sentence served consecutively for each one

Likely he is so arrogant he won't give a shit though.

I'd have to link Instagram and MN wouldn't approve it. Here is one case, there are lots more.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18221964.jimmy-wilson-30-breached-restraining-order-assault-partner/

I don’t think following guidelines is any kind of excuse

Parliament sets the guidelines. Parliament contains elected and accountable members. What you’re proposing is that the judiciary should ignore the legislature.

It’s relevant to the issue of understanding consent and risk. One has intellectual capacity in the bottom 1% compared with his peers, the other was in the bottom 5%: That deals with culpability.

If you’re banging people up because they’re generally a danger to the public, then there are separate ways outside the criminal law to deal with that. Essentially, you’re treating them as though they have a highly infectious and untreatable disease, like Typhoid Mary. You don’t blame someone who’s contaminated like that but you take action to contain the danger. But you have to be care, given the history of states and rich families locking away inconvenient people.

"The way the victims' lives have been changed FOREVER has just not been taken into account.
Nor has the fact this wasn't one crime, it was a crime they repeated, with another victim a couple of weeks later.
Nor has the fact they filmed it, and shared it on social media.
Nor has the fact that - despite the compelling evidence (that THEY filmed!), they still didn't admit it and the poor victims had to go through the trials."

I agree that rape carries too low a sentence, that's an issue with the sentencing guidelines and I think is a relic of the judicial system being set-up by men. (I also think child sexual abuse sentences are similarly inadequate). However, to be fair all these things listed were taken in to account in the court of appeal sentencing - you can read the judgement online. The impact on the victims, the fact it was filmed and the fact there were two separate occasions are things that pushed it up into a more serious category and lengthier sentences. The fact that didn't plead guilty is also taken in to account because there is no reduction for a plea. My anger is towards the sentencing guidelines, and the society we live in that allows males to see females as lesser and to be used for gratification.

Does having a cognitive impairment mean you are less of a danger to the public? Surely that's a really important factor?

Whether you like it or not the goal is not punishment but rehabilitation and in many cases a prison setting is only detrimental to a young teenager and serves no rehabilitation for them.

I remember this too and often think the same. It's only recently that some sexual violence seems to receive longer sentences. It used to be a few months. I just don't understand why they think it's ok to allow these dangerous rapists back on the streets.