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

[BerryTwister]

I’ve just read that the boys who raped and filmed 2 girls have had their non custodial sentences changed to custodial ones. Judge Nicholas Rowland had originally let them off with non custodial sentences, but there was a public outcry and the Attorney General got involved. In court today it was stated that he had made a mistake, and the boys were remanded in custody.

I can’t find any information about what happens to Nicholas Rowland. Maybe nothing. But I really think there should be some consequence. Maybe some retraining, or perhaps not being allowed to try cases involving sexual violence against women and girls for a while.

In any other job, if you made such an error of judgement, you wouldn't just be allowed to carry on as you were.

I thought the sentence was outrageous, I suspect however that the issue is more with the guidelines than the judge. I’m happy to be corrected if that’s wrong. If the issue is the guidelines, hopefully these will now be revised.

He's not going to be the only judge who puts the feelings of men above the violence endured by women and girls. It's dead common. I think mandatory retraining for the lot to f them.

The original verdict was outrageous and in my opinion gave a frightening insight into the mind of the person giving it. I am glad it was appealed.

I agree!

YANBU.

There needs to be punishment for judges who clearly let a personal bias influence the appropriate sentencing.

Is there a way to look up a specific judges past cases, all the sentences they have given out?

Because I suspect this (and many other judges) history would show an alarming pattern of sympathising more with rapists and criminals than the victims.

I've been thinking the same thing OP. He needs to be stuck off or at least publicly reprimanded and actively shamed.

It’s interesting that the judge who gave the commentary said that the effect on the victims hadn’t been considered enough. Says it all really - the perpetrators were considered sympathetically and the victims weren’t considered at all.

I mean, his name has been put out there and he has been thoroughly scolded professionally. So there's that at least.

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.

His comments during sentencing were horrific

I'd also like to see consequences for the original sentence. It particularly infuriated me that the judge commended the boys for managing to behave themselves during the court proceedings as if this in some way mitigated the rapes they'd committed and the consequences for the girls they raped. One might reasonably expect someone in his position to be aware that putting on a performance in front of authority figures is the oldest trick in the book for abusers.

I have a relative who worked in criminology for a while, and she was generally quite anti-jail, but that was because her point of view was that jail was only appropriate when someone was a danger to the public. I think a person who has committed two rapes and filmed them has pretty definitively demonstrated that they are a danger to the public, and like so many women I was deeply disturbed by the initial sentence. The problem was obviously partly the judge, but I think the PP who mentions that the issue may also be with the guidelines may also have a point. I’m no expert, but I remember someone on the initial thread about this saying that his sentence could possibly be considered to be within the guidelines as they stand.

I hope one of the victims, who said the initial verdict was ‘like a rock to my face’, is able to take at least a small amount of comfort in the resulting public outcry, and the fact that the sentence has now been revised. It’s unbearable really though to think about what she’s been through.

This will be disastrous for his career. Getting a sentence altered by the Court of Appeal is a very bad look. But he was in a difficult position. As PP have noted, the sentencing guidelines emphasise leniency for children, and there are endless reports and campaigners urging judges to keep children out of prison. If you google it you’ll find dozens.

On top of that the prisons are full. Sentencing two extra people to prison means letting two other criminals out early. Those others might be equally bad.

I also thought the sentence was outrageous. I would just blame the system, the guidelines, the progressive “pro-children, evidence-led” campaigners and the successive governments who haven’t built enough prison spaces, as much as I would blame the judge.

Great post, totally agree

https://www.change.org/p/remove-judge-nicholas-rowland-from-future-cases

There's a petition against him.

In effect, he HAS been publicly rebuked.

I only realised this afternoon that there were two separate dates for the rapes, one in 2024 and one in 2025. Both were filmed apparently.

Four years….hmm

Any idea how long they've already been detained for while awaiting trial? Presumably that counts towards their sentences, so maybe they won't actually be in a young offenders institution for much more time anyway.

There was an interesting podcast that covers the sentencing. It really challenged my instinctively desire for these boys to get long custodial sentences, though I am not sure it changed my mind.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3sM5fya66iHYi44RylIAG2?si=GdW5WYTJQKiIwLh0KuoU8g

I also struggle to understand what life is like for the boy with a bottom 1% IQ.

I’m reading them now. Which comments were horrific?

Interestingly, there's a campaign going on now, including by the Bar Council to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14, in line with most other European countries, and UN recommendations.

If that had been the case, then once of the 3 boys would have been too young, and the other two only just old enough by a matter of weeks.

I don't think we've got an appetite for this change in the UK, as the Bulger case is still ingrained in our national memory, but it's worth remembering that in many countries (most of Scandinavia for example), the boys couldn't even be tried.

I think they should have been jailed from what I know about the case, and am pleased by the result at appeal, but I appreciate that it's a difficult job to sentence children for such a horrific offence, and to balance the need too sevens then as children but also consider the impact on the poor girls who were victims in this.

Yes we should shame everyone publicly when they make a mistake at their job.

The system worked, he was wrong and he was corrected by a higher court and the perpetrators are getting the sentences they should’ve had in the first place.

That’s enough now, I doubt very much he acted deliberately to try and let them off the hook, he made a mistake and he interpreted the sentencing guidelines in a way he ought not to have and placed too much weight on their mitigation. But he does NOT deserve to be struck of, shamed or vilified.

The clue is in the name. They are judges. If we don't want to have humans in the loop, using their judgement around the circumstances of a case, then we could just replace them with a spreadsheet.

As an aside, I know two brilliant female lawyers from college. One is a judge, and the amount of abuse she has to put up with from the public and press (she sat on the sentencing panel for a good while) has put the other one off ever applying. It's often a massive pay cut for a good lawyer to become a judge, many do it to 'give something back' and serve society. Calling for pitchforks will result in even fewer good lawyers, female or male, making the switch

It’s not uncommon for sentences to be altered. If all judges were removed when a sentence is reviewed, there would not be enough and no judge takes sentencing lightly. This fact was stressed by the Appeal Court judge. She felt the careful weighing up of the facts by the first judge had not given appropriate weight to the trauma of the girls and she also found the CPS had lied about the case to the press. Knives were not involved but the CPS briefed that they were.

The original judge should continue in his role and child offenders need a range of sentences. One size doesn’t fit all cases. I assume the boys will be going to a YOI and we really don’t want to see hundreds more dc in them. If we raise the criminal age to 14, there will need to be revised sentencing guidelines.

I was appalled at the original sentence but when I read his sentencing remarks I could see how the guidelines took him there.

The real issue is the actual sentences available and the sentencing guidelines. And as people have pointed out, there’s a debate about the age of criminal responsibility. But arguably, if violence against women and girls is an epidemic, then the sentencing should be stronger to reflect that. Add in the wider issues in the criminal justice system around delay and prison spaces….. it needs detailed consideration and I don’t think the country is in a place for that to happen.

Indeed. Around 500 sentences are varied by the court of appeal every year - most by defendants seeking a reduction, but also referred by the AG in the grounds of undue leniency. It's not unusual, it's just that this case was high profile and so we've heard about it.