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

This isn't relevant to the sentencing exercise, but I thought possibly interesting that none of the three boys were in school. X had dropped out at the age of 10, Y had stopped attending in Year 4 although was said to receive home tutoring, and Z was home educated. I do wonder what checks where made on the quality of education they were receiving (and I'm in no way opposed to home education when it is done well).

I think it's pretty clear cut than an average adult in those circumstances would be totally aware that comment had been withdrawn.

Whether the same applies to a teenager with the level of understanding of a 9 year old is less clear cut. 'I'm not ok with this any more' is more nuanced than a straight no. However that goes to whether or not they should have been convicted, which is for the jury, rather than the sentence. They were the ones who heard the evidence on this and clearly believed the boys did know she had stopped consenting.

The entire situation makes me terrified of being a parent of teenagers in the future tbh.

No reasonable person would expect that a teenage girl would consent to sex with multiple boys being filmed in a recreation ground

That's a pretty good point. I must confess I was wavering over the verdicts a bit but I think we can say for certain there was a point where the girls genuinely withdrew consent and a point where the boys were being so awful with both words and deeds that they must have realized any upfront consent no longer applied.

Except Count 1. That verdict was just wrong.

I think it’s clear that it was rape, at least for the counts where they were actually found guilty. In that the perpetrator could not have had a “reasonable” belief in consent. No reasonable person would expect that a teenage girl would consent to sex with multiple boys being filmed in a recreation ground when they were not showing signs of enthusiastic consent, even if they had consented (somewhat reluctantly) to sexual activity before and said, again reluctantly, that they consented to a threesome.

But I do think it goes to the culpability of the boys. They were boys of very low intelligence (probably to the extent that they didn’t have the cognitive abilities of the average 9 year old who would be below the level of criminal responsibility) and of little education. Whether they really understood the nuances of consent here and the lifelong consequences and trauma caused is doubtful. Though the psych report found they had some understanding of consent.

From the victims’ and society’s perspective they are just as dangerous with those mitigating factors as they would be without. But they are relevant to sentencing.

This is the issue.

I agree with everyone that the "sentence" was appalling, BUT, it was still an 'allowable sentence' within the guidelines as they are.

Personally, I think even the 4 years they have now been given is appalling. Let alone the fact they will only be expected to serve 1/2, less the time they have had 'curfews' whilst on bail. So it is STILL woefully inadequate.

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.

They should each be actually serving 20 - 25 years IMO, which probably means they would need to be given a sentence of 40 odd years.

Remember they raped two different children, on two different occasions and two of them committed rape on both occasions. Then share the footage of the girls being attacked.

If they are old enough to commit an adult crime, then they are old enough to do enough time away from society that actually begins to reflect the harm they inflicted on the victims.

I am SO angry about this.

The description of what happened and the video evidence sounds very clear that the girls were treated like animals. It doesn't really matter that they were initially consenting or that she said there was a knife or that she voluntarily left her bag behind. It's sounding a bit like the "well what did you expect going to a man's hotel room alone at night after a few drinks" etc

I think it's a bit more complex than that @JJkate. My summary of the CoA judgment:

• AG (so the Prosecution) is not arguing that the Sentencing Guidelines themselves are defective, nor that the Judge failed to follow the SG for the category into which he placed it, but that he got the categorisation wrong - this was the basis on which the reference succeeded
• J was compelled to have regard to a series of guidelines in addition to the specific guidelines on rape (para 16) which he did
• Victims provided Victim Personal Statements (para 42 - 46) outlining the effects on them which are in keeping with what one would expect given the offences - J was obliged to have regard to those too
• Circs of the offenders highly relevant because aim of sentence for children prioritises rehabilitation above punishment (para 79; para 107-8; para 112). This is the law and the J has no power to decide to prioritise punishment because of the high public interest.
• CoA very critical of the original prosecution sentencing note which did not provide sufficient assistance to the J - if this seems peculiar, it is standard practice particularly in complex cases that a sentencing note is expected to assist the J) (para 73 - 74)
• Seriousness of the offending must be viewed through the lens of 'seriousness' and 'harm' by virtue of s.63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which is then mirrored in the SG. This is where a lot of the complexity comes in, because to a lay person, of course any rape is serious and of course it causes serious psychological harm to any V. But that's not quite the task of the sentencing J, who is being asked to assess where within the spectrum of the seriousness and harm inherent to the offence this particular rape and its effects lie. It would be no answer to s.63 to determine that by its very nature every rape should be treated as a high culpability high harm case. If Parliament wants to decide that every rape should be treated as equally serious then that is for Parliament (and the Sentencing Council) to decide. In this particular case the J was held to have underestimated the serious psychological harm caused to the victims.
• The Child Sexual Offences Guideline is really unhelpful (paragraphs 119 - 122) because it offers "two boxes without assisting the sentencer" and covers a vastly wide spectrum of offences. (The J in this case had in any event gone for box 2 which is the more serious of the two by imposing a rehabilitation order with intensive supervision)
• The J therefore has to go back to the adult guidelines in principle, and this is where the CoA disagreed with the sentencing J - sentencing J had placed this as a Cat 3A offence (para 94) and CoA said it should be a 2A offence. (para 123 - this identifies where the J fell into error)
• However, the CoA endorsed the guidance given in the previous case of ZA which is that for most "children in cases of ... sexual offences will not result in a decision that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is possible" - (para 133) so v important to note that this decision should NOT be read as thinking that the J did something out of the ordinary or deplorable in handing down a non-custodial sentence. He did not.
• J's decision on 'dangerousness' was 'entirely conventional and in line with authority' and was not altered (para 163)

Para 178 onwards deals with the CPS's absolutely inexplicable decision to pour petrol on the flames by publishing that this was a 'knife point rape' when it was not - which has inflamed public opinion from the hang-the-boys crowd but has also inflamed public opinion on the girls-lie-about-rape side too, when as the CoA point out, the jury believed the girl was raped. It has also caused wrongful vilification of the trial judge who "carried out with care a difficult and complex sentencing exercise."

@BlossomtoesJudges retire at 75.

I think two years is a very low sentence for rape. Very very low.

@EnidSpyton I appreciate what you are saying and understand your explanations but as an outsider I think sometimes it is useful to have people that know nothing about a system and it's rules to be able to see it isn't right. what ways do you think we should deal with these kinds of offenders instead Enid?

@WiggyPig thank you that is helpful. I think what you are saying is that the judge pretty much followed the rules. And you say, those rules might not be right but they still have to follow them and if society wants to change them, that's a separate matter for parliament.

You sound like you think it was not that bad a crime and thus does not deserve much of a sentence? Am I right in making that assumption?

You tell me. How many extra years would you add to the sentence if a knife had been involved? Zero?

What about count 1 where she was subsiquently asked if it was consenting and said "yes", yet the jury still decided it was rape? If that had been a stranger rape at knife point you think it should not carry any extra time?

Y and another boy arrived at the Recreation Ground and joined X and C1. She was asked by Y if she wanted a threesome. C1 initially said "no" on a couple of occasions but then said "yes"

C2 was later to tell police that she had been made to leave her phone and air-tag in the Co-op on Fordingbridge High Street, and that three boys had then forced her at knifepoint to walk to the Recreation Ground through back alleys. Her account was however disproven when CCTV was recovered showing her leaving her phone and airtag in the Co-Op, in company with a female friend. Further, she was recorded on Ring Doorbell footage saying: "I can't be anywhere near my Airtag or my Mum will find me" and "We need to get away from the Co-Op now".

I have no idea how you disentangle all this but there is nuance and two years served is not as mental as it seemed to me before I read the judgement.

You sound like you think it was not that bad a crime and thus does not deserve much of a sentence? Am I right in making that assumption?

You tell me. How many extra years would you add to the sentence if a knife had been involved? Zero?

What about count 1 where she was subsiquently asked if it was consenting and said "yes", yet the jury still decided it was rape? If that had been a stranger rape at knife point you think it should not carry any extra time?

Y and another boy arrived at the Recreation Ground and joined X and C1. She was asked by Y if she wanted a threesome. C1 initially said "no" on a couple of occasions but then said "yes"

C2 was later to tell police that she had been made to leave her phone and air-tag in the Co-op on Fordingbridge High Street, and that three boys had then forced her at knifepoint to walk to the Recreation Ground through back alleys. Her account was however disproven when CCTV was recovered showing her leaving her phone and airtag in the Co-Op, in company with a female friend. Further, she was recorded on Ring Doorbell footage saying: "I can't be anywhere near my Airtag or my Mum will find me" and "We need to get away from the Co-Op now".

I have no idea how you disentangle all this but there is nuance and two years served is not as mental as it seemed to me before I read the judgement.

This thread is yet another example where people don't bother actually reading the source information behind the headlines, have no professional knowledge or understanding of the situation, and start baying for people's blood on social media based on their knee-jerk emotional reaction to news reports that barely scratch the surface when it comes to the complexities behind the scenes.

Judges have a very difficult job and the information they use to come up with their sentences is not information most of the general public fully understands. The law is complex and nuanced and open to interpretation. As others have said, plenty of sentences are taken to the Court of Appeal every year because of this. It's far too simplistic to think of it as a judge making a 'mistake'.

This judge does not need 'consequences'. They haven't done anything wrong. They interpreted the case to the best of their ability using the evidence and guidelines they had in front of them. That sentencing has now been challenged with a different set of eyes on the guidelines and the evidence presented, and a new sentence has been given. This is par for the course in the legal world - it happens all the time, and is why there is a Court of Appeal in the first place. Judges are individuals with their own experiences and biases and that will always factor into how they interpret the legal guidelines in front of them. Whether a female judge would have made a different call is an interesting question to consider, but we have no way of knowing whether that would have been the case.

I would also say that as someone who does volunteer work in prisons, banging up boys with very low intelligence in jail with a bunch of other boys like them for a couple of years is going to do absolutely bugger all to stop them from reoffending or help them to make better choices and have more stable lives in future. The longterm consequences and subsequent costs to the state of locking up kids this young is well documented and why judges are advised to avoid sending children to jail where possible. The victims absolutely need justice - but seeing the only worthwhile justice as being jail time for the perpetrators is a very limited way of looking at crime and punishment.