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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

"if the victim is to be believed" alright Danny.

On this you're saying you don't believe her, I'm saying I do, that clause was added for your benefit, not mine, if she's telling the truth that 100% supports my case. If you want to concede she's telling the truth on count 1 then I don't need that caveat.

Just to add: all 3 boys were home educated. There’s no doubt as to the offences but these boys have some significant issues which had not been adequately addressed. The court of appeal gives details of their backgrounds. It tends to be a number of failures when dc turn out like this.

The thing is @MeetMeOnTheCorneryou could probably say that about most offenders that are caught and punished. It doesn't really add or change anything except to make some people feel better that they are more humane because they have compassion for the offender. So where do we go from here? Understanding and compassion, ok fine. And then what? It sounds like there isn't really any rehabilitation? If you could show us how lots of men have been rehabilitated I'd love to see that.

I think the point is that unless you are going to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives, they will be freed at some point and be living amongst us. I’m not saying I agreed with the judge (I didn’t), but it’s not only about punishment and the deterrence of others; the judge has to consider whether spending years in Young Offenders institutions or in prison is likely to make a young person more or less likely to be set on a path of crime and anti-social behaviour for the rest of their life. If the answer is "more likely, because of who they’ve been mixing with every day for years", we have to accept that that has long-term implications for society.

Thanks for this explanation. What can be done to protect women and girls better? I'm asking because it seems like dealing with the perpetrators is a dead end.

I really don’t know. I guess it has to start early, with the attitudes boys absorb in their families, but that just isn’t going to happen in some families.

I think what we and @OtterlyAstounding are being told is that having to be told not to rape, is so much worse and upsetting and harmful than actually being raped?

MN is an internet chat board. It's for discussion.

It’s a very useful barometer of the willingness of people with little or no knowledge of a subject to opine as if they were experts. I have more knowledge than most about two different issues/subjects , as for the rest I’m as dim as everyone else. However when either area comes up I’m genuinely amazed at some of the “opinions” stated as facts.

In this circumstance Mr Bumble is right “the law is an ass, an idiot”.

Women are really tired of rapists being let off.

It doesn't take legal qualifications to understand this.

Criticising women for discussing law that affects all of us is pretty condescending.