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

@Tekknonan Sentencing guidelines do take various factors into account. There has to be degrees of sentence but for youths, it’s not the same as adults. As you say, the judge erred and it’s been corrected. Not a single person here was in court and has responsibility for anything. Plenty don’t understand the judicial system and that reviewing a sentence is not unusual. Mostly it’s lashing out and blaming everyone involved. There’s a complete failure to understand the breadth of what Justice tries to achieve when dc are involved.

It's an insight into their mind thought isn't it? This is a pretty widespread way of thinking. Not even trying to cover it up. It's plain as day. Shocking and also not surprising.

She said yes to a "threesome" and went with the lads. Her reason for that wont have been visible to the lads.

This framing is disgusting.

You're outright ignoring the fact that she said no, more than once, and they intimidated and pressured her into a 'yes' as she was afraid to continue saying no to them, while outnumbered and trapped. You're literally justifying rape. It's abhorrent.

Ah, so in your opinion, rape is no big deal if a knife isn't involved?

Wouldn't a kidnapping and threats with a knife be an aggravating factor in sentencing? Maybe I'm wrong, if so tell me so.

And I'm not sure of the exact law on that

OK, well I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Somehow I don't thing that's going to change your opinion.

There was no agreement to have sex that was later withdrawn.

She said yes to a "threesome" and went with the lads. Her reason for that wont have been visible to the lads.

It's quite clear that despite saying she was consenting, she had said no several times, felt trapped, and didn't want to do it. It was absolutely oral rape.

She said under oath that count 1 was consensual. If you're going to say "Ahh well she'd said that but she didn't mean it." then that's the logic to lads employed and we all agree that was very wrong.

So why are you trying to lie and say she initially consented? Why are you trying to excuse rapists?

We're arguing about Circe7's statement that the judgment says was consent at one or more points. It did.

I'll leave the last word on this to you.

C1 did say no, several times. She made it clear she didn't want to, but they kept going until she was scared enough to say yes. If they are mentally incapable of understanding that (I think they did, they just didn't care) then they are not safe to have in society.

So, where is your compassion for the victims? How is that compassion presenting itself in material terms? Because I'm not seeing it. And how do you think these boys will actually be rehabilitated and prevented from becoming men who are abusive to the females who come into their lives? Because I think it's very unlikely, in realistic terms, that they will be rehabilitated. I suspect they will go through their lives hurting the vulnerable women around them and causing harm to any female partners and children they may have, whether or not they are charged for any crimes.

And forgive me for not having sympathy for rapists just because they're precocious little mischiefs, and start their raping career early.

There should be consequences for the fkrs who wrote the sentencing guidelines.

But there won't be. Nobody will write to their MP, nobody will complain and everyone will keep voting for the sexist pigs pretending to govern this country.

He followed sentencing guidelines for children. Nothing to penalise him for. The court of appeal increased the sentences. It happens a lot. It's hard to write sentencing guidelines that cover all cases.

Ah, so in your opinion, rape is no big deal if a knife isn't involved?

And I'm not sure of the exact law on that – if it's not the case, perhaps the jury felt the girl was being coerced or pressured, despite saying it was consensual.

After all, in the section I quoted, the victim, C1, initially said 'no' to sex several times, denying consent. There was no agreement to have sex that was later withdrawn.

For the charges the two perpetrators were found guilty of (with triggering/explicit parts redacted, bold mine):

"She was asked by Y if she wanted a threesome. C1 initially said "no" on a couple of occasions but then said "yes".
[..]
C1 said in her ABE interview that the only reason she had said "yes" was that she "didn't know what they would have done if I didn't say 'yeah'". She said that she felt "petrified" and "cornered".
[...]
C1 said in her ABE interview that she felt "numb" and "disgusted" whilst she was doing this to X and that she was "shaking". She was asked in her ABE interview whether she wanted to [redacted] and she said "no". She also stated that she felt trapped by three boys near to the river. In evidence, when cross-examined on behalf of X she agreed that her love for X was fading when the others were present; but when asked whether she was still consenting [redacted] she said "yes". Notwithstanding that answer, X and Y were each convicted of oral rape: X as Principal and Y as the secondary party."

It's quite clear that despite saying she was consenting, she had said no several times, felt trapped, and didn't want to do it. It was absolutely oral rape.

So why are you trying to lie and say she initially consented? Why are you trying to excuse rapists?

It’s not that it’s alright or not rape. The jury convicted the boys of rape. They heard all the evidence. I trust the verdict particularly as it’s so difficult to get a conviction for rape. I said upthread, I don’t think there can have been a “reasonable” belief in consent in that a reasonable person would have known the girls did not consent. And a rape conviction requires that the perpetrator had no “reasonable” belief in consent.

But I think it does go to culpability and potential for rehabilitation. A thirteen year old of very low intelligence and education may have had enough understanding of consent to know that you don’t have sex with someone who is actually saying no but not have understood sufficiently that consent can be withdrawn, that a girl could say “yes” and that not be consent because of fear / coercion, that consent to one activity is not consent to any sexual activity etc. Possibly they could be taught that. I think the judge did also remark that the boys may also have had a disregard for whether the girls had consented i.e didn’t think about it or didn’t care about it, which I would think is very likely.

And some of the facts of the case are legally relevant to sentencing. There was a finding of fact that a knife was not used in the attack. If it had been, this would have been an aggravating factor and increased the sentence. Likewise the “kidnap” element initially reported would have been an aggravating factor legally, but this was found not to have happened at least in the way reported.

But I don’t think there’s any doubt that what happened was at the most serious end of the spectrum of sexual offences and the real debate is about what you do with the perpetrators.

And I think you can have compassion for the victims and still not believe in the death penalty or a lifelong sentence for thirteen years olds.

It means Count 1 wasn't a horrific rape. It might have been horrific, but it wasn't rape, if the victim is to be believed.

We also need to be careful that we don't equate being below the age of consent for a 15yo girl with rape.

The sexual activity that was consensual would otherwise mean in giving him the BJ, she'd sexually assaulted him and he sexually assaulted her at the same time. Both are below the age of consent.

14 and 15yos having consensual sex is them committing the criminal offence of having sex with someone below the age of consent, but if they did in fact consent, it's not rape.

I didn’t get her name but it wasn’t her. She was a former judge at the Old Bailey and very sensible. The original sentences were clearly wrong but she explained how the judge could have arrived at them. As she pointed out that’s why we have a Court of Appeal which has done the job it’s intended to. For all its faults I have more faith in the law than the law of Mumsnet.

As I wrote, I was talking about Count 1, and it is true, it's in the judgement.

No. Thats untrue. The victim C1 consented to oral sex earlier in the evening. She did NOT consent to having sex with either boy, let alone both of them while being filmed and degraded. She was intimidated into agreeing to it as her repeated 'nos' were ignored, and she was frightened of them.

One of my favourite Mumsnet quotes of all time regarding misogyny; "it's in the fucking walls!" As demonstrated here.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a horrific rape.

🤯

So what is there, exactly, that could significantly change your opinion?

The fact that nobody got kidnapped at knifepoint. Or raped at knifepoint.

Certainly changed my opinion: No reasonable person could regard that as irrelevant to sentencing.

At her age, the victim was incapable of giving consent.

I don't think that's true in English Law. You'll need to link to a source to back it up.

Yeah, reading the judgment she consented and then withdrew her consent sometime after count 1. So Circe7 was right.

At her age, the victim was incapable of giving consent. I would assume that's why the verdict was rape.

And the case was presented in the media, from what I read, as rape in a park, with girls going to meet boys they were interested in only to be raped by multiple boys, with the involvement of a knife in at at least one case – all of which are correct facts.

So what is there, exactly, that could significantly change your opinion?

From what I read, she did not 'initially express consent' to having penetrative sex – she said 'no' several times when propositioned for a 'threesome' until their refusal to take no for an answer intimidated her into saying yes. The oral sex was earlier, and separate to the later demands.

I don't know why you're so keen to downplay the pack rape of girls by three boys by pointing out – totally irrelevantly – that they consented to other activities, but it's pretty creepy.

So you interpret this girls behaviour as consent? That's incredibly worrying.

Oh that's alright then isn't it Danny? I wonder how you'd feel if it was your daughter who'd been subjected to this treatment? Or maybe you'd say your daughter isn't the kind of girl who'd be in this position in the first place? That's the vibe isn't it? Oh it's nuanced ,oh it's complicated. No it isn't.

I'm really not sure what we're supposed to be reading that would change our perspectives?

Given the CPS (and the media) presented this case as essentially a kidnapping of strangers at knifepoint and the judgment debunks all that and more, it would be very odd if anyone hasn't substantialy changed their opinion as a result of reading the judgement.

Also the fact that on charge one there was a guilty verdict on rape despite the victim saying in court she had consented. I didn't see that coming.

So you can say two years is too short but you can't reasonably say there's nothing new in the judgement to change a reasonable person's opinion.

This also C1 talking about Count 1: In evidence, when cross-examined on behalf of X she agreed that her love for X was fading when the others were present; but when asked whether she was still consenting to give a blow job she said "yes".

Undeniably there was consent at some points.