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).

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.

Very excellent summary. The only additional point I'd note for completeness is that the boys have been convicted but the CA judgment on sentencing also notes in passing that they are apparently appealing those convictions.

That appeal - if it progresses and one can only speculate on what the grounds might be - would be quite separate from this CA case (which was in effect the prosecution appealing the sentencing decision and only considered this not the safety or otherwise of the underlying conviction).

There is no 'nuance' or other implication that this was not rape.

Count 1?

when asked whether she was still consenting to give a blow job she said "yes". Notwithstanding that answer, X and Y were each convicted of oral rape

Irrelevant though because we're talking about the sentence here, not the verdict.

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."

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.

@WrongKindOfFeminist Don’t you think all victims of rape have all the feelings you describe? This case was wrongly described by the CPS as having a knife involved. All judges try and sentence on facts not the views of victims. If we only sentenced on the latter, everyone would get life sentences, including dc. We don’t sentence based on the sentencing views and distress of victims. Judges take into account the facts of the crime and the original judge erred but that’s not wholly unusual. It’s been corrected via the law mechanisms. That’s why it’s available but we cannot keep having a go at judges who have a different opinion.

Precisely, so some rapes “not that bad”?
I am astounded people can have those thoughts.

This is the impression I'm getting.

How anyone could read the girls' accounts of their fear, discomfort and suffering and make this argument is incredibly depressing.

It was not raped at knifepoint by strangers in an underpass. But they were horrific rapes. 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?

@BlossomtoesJudges retire at 75.

No idea how you think that confirms he has been unduly light touched on crimes against women and girls during his career. It’s a news report of one single judgment with literally almost no details on the crime or the court hearings.

There is no 'nuance' or other implication that this was not rape.

Impossible to say but it looked to me like the subtext in the bit about despite the airpods/mobile phone and the mistake over the knife "the jury believed".

But TBH, the verdict is ancient history, nobody is questioning the verdict. The bit under debate is the sentence. They will serve 2 years which would be bat shit for two rapes of strangers at knife point in an underpass with an element of kidnapping about it. In fact it wasn't that and 2 years is starting to appear a lot less mental.

I totally agree with you OP.
What a misogynist. .

If someone can explain to me why I'm wrong I'm open to hearing it.

@KateSixerok I've read it. I would encourage others to too. I think (I may be wrong?) the "Nuance" and "complications" people are referring to are this; the girls were initially consenting. That's it. They were not dragged off the street at knife point by strangers. That's it. The description reads like rape but I think some people think only violent stranger rape counts. I really don't agree that neurodiversity and ADHD and low IQ should be mitigating factors either. People need to be protected from these kinds of people regardless of their conditions and mental health and SEN diagnoses.

It's not clear what the previous posters meant by 'nuance'.

This judge must be within spitting distance of retirement, he went to the bar in 1988. The best thing would be for him to just go now.

We need judges, lots are retiring and this is partly why cout cases are taking so long.

Also if you apply this rule to a judge do you apply the same rule to social workers who make mistakes where babies and children are murdered?

Thank you @WrongKindOfFeminist, if posters are using that as the “nuance” are they also then saying there is high risk of this happening again then?

I have just read the judgment. There is no 'nuance' or other implication that this was not rape.

The so-called mitigations remain the same as they were previously - that the boys were of low intelligence and a 'possible' ADHD diagnosis.

Those poor girls. I hope they have all the support and help they need.

Well yes, especially if courts and people who work in this environment have the belief that there seems to be acceptable reasons for rape and violence.
it reads as “oh they don’t know any better so therefore best keep them in the community, it’s not fair for them”
so if they don’t know it’s wrong, don’t face consequences, its not their fault.. am assuming we’ve not to be surprised when they rape again?

100% agree
We are going backwards at an alarming rate in respect of how women are being treated - its scary.

For all those telling readers to go and read the judgment, I would urge caution.

Extremely graphic descriptions of child sex abuse and rape.

It's very upsetting.