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.

Quite.
Its not like appeals judges have a different set of guidelines with sentences not available to the first judges.

an additional thing beyond the custodial element I found interesting was that the original judge only imposed a 10 year ban on the boys contacting the victims, which the new sentence extended to a lifetime one. To me a lifetime one would seem blatantly obvious - in ten years the girls will still only be in their late 20s, why on earth would they ever want contact with their rapists? And that's not something that would be impacted by prisons being full or anything else.

Perhaps there was some other rationale but in the absence of an explanation, to me it does tend to support the comments that he didn't really consider or care about the impact on the victims.

There's really not all that much flexibility in the guidelines at all for most offences. The judge has to work out the correct category (and will be appealed if the defendant thinks s/he has got it wrong - but often both prosecution and defence agree the category) and then there isn't terribly much wriggle room from there. What little flexibility there is has to be justified by the sentencing judge for any movement upwards or downwards from the starting point specified in the guidelines.

@JustGiveMeReason a wonderful post which puts things into context which I do not have the words for.

Lots around the sentences being changed.

very little about how absolutely shit the sentences remain.

@NoisyHiker Id vote to put people like you in there with them. We absolutely need rehabilitation of children/teens. They were not adults and we are already out of kilter with most decent nations in terms of criminal age for dc. This awful retribution heaped on dc is too much. We all accept there needs to be punishment but what you suggest is it civilised. We should never be that nation.

I can tell you having served as an officer in a YOI, that there is a drive to not send young people to jail as the current judiciary think criminalisation of them leads to far worse problems - mental health problems and never able to reinsert themselves into society owing to employers reluctant to give jobs to people with criminal records. I can see the logic of this.

If you look at the sentencing guidelines, the purpose of sentencing adults is:

• the punishment of offenders;
• the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
• the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
• the protection of the public; and
• the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

But when sentencing children the court must have regard to:

• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.

There is a huge difference in how adult and child offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. The guidelines for children emphasis using custodial sentences as a last resort, having regard to learning difficulties and difficult home circumstances and rehabilitation.

I can see why the judge took the approach he did, though I support a custodial sentence being imposed. But judges have to apply the law and relevant guidance regardless of public opinion and there will be differences of opinion between different judges and courts - it is extremely common for a judge’s decision to be reversed by a higher court. It is fundamental to how our justice system works in fact.

I can also see why the public objected so strongly to the initial sentence for such a serious crime.

But in terms of the custodial sentence it doesn’t do much to protect the public. The boys will likely to be out in two years. They are highly unlikely to have been rehabilitated. If anything they might be worse for a couple of years in custody.

But custody for children isn’t the same as custody for adults in any case. Depending on age and vulnerability, they might go to a secure children’s home or training centre rather than a YOI.

I think implying that the judge is a paedophile is really out of order though.

I did wonder if one of the reasons that the sentance was so low is that the boys involved were from the traveller community, and judges are trained through guidence that the traveller community is overrepresented in the prison system, and so equality does not always mean 'the same'.

'Or for example in the criminal justice, the most overrepresented group in the criminal justice system are Gypsey, Roma, Traveller,....understand that context can be different for different ethnic groups.'

David Lammy - equality does not always mean the same

Nicholas Rowland also only imposed a 10 year ban on the boys contacting the victims in any way which the families of both victims have said left them feeling extremely vulnerable. Thankfully with the new sentencing this has now been amended to a Lifetime ban on all contact. Again this is only what it should have been in the first place. 10 years???? WTF was he thinking? 😡

They will be out in less than 4 years - the sentence is reduced by time already served and time on curfew, then they will only do 50% of whatever's left.

Part of the issue with wanting more significant sentences is that young offenders institutes are awful places that bring together people who get worse, not better from their time there. If they were genuinely supportive and rehabilitative, then it would be worth sending more children to them. Improving them and prisons would be expensive. I suspect that most of the people who want longer sentences don't want to pay more taxes to fund more prison places or better provision. Nor would they be happy to see NHS and school funding cut to pay for that.

@Circe7 I don’t think most posters understand the difference between dc and adults in the criminal justice system. They certainly won’t be going to prison. I’m not sure what assistance they might get after leaving their custodial unit. One would like to think ongoing guidance and monitoring.

I was about to post this link. It's a very good listen. Although I still err towards custody, it did make me reconsider. It would have been helpful if the full judgement was published immediately.

The guidelines don’t give a lot of flexibility at all - they provide a flow chart type route through to a relatively narrow sentencing bracket and it depends on the judge’s interpretation of each section of the flow chart.

Why bother posting about how much discretion there is when you clearly actually have zero clue about the content of the sentencing guidelines or how Judge’s sentence people 🙄🙄

I read that one or maybe both boys had been on "curfew", and that that will count against their sentence.

I'd encourage anyone interested - and particularly anyone who thinks sentencing children for serious offences is an easy task - to read the Court of Appeal judgment in full: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2026/845.html

Paragraphs 178 onwards are worth a careful read.

• [Content warning: judgment contains graphic descriptions of rape and CSA]

This is what is happening in Sweden, as a consequence of lenient laws for young offenders:
How criminal gangs in Sweden are recruiting children for violence and crime - Humanium

We should resist this campaign imo. “County Lines” relies on using younger people who are less likely to be sentenced. If you think under 14s aren’t involved in crime, you haven’t been spending time in the big cities.

That comment wasn’t aimed at you @Babyboomtastic btw. Sorry if it read that way!

It wasn't the verdict that was at issue.

There are exceptions to keeping children out of jail and one of them is rape, so he had no excuse whatsoever for not giving them a custodial sentence.

I do think that amongst many of his peers, especially women judges, his remarks will have been very much looked at with horror.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770538#main-content

From the judgement WiggyPig quotes:

there was no knife-point rape and, as captured on CCTV footage, C2 had left her mobile phone and Airtag in a shop of her own accord.

I'd just say I think this was a much more complicated and nuanced case than people see it here.

Not saying the original sentence was right or wrong. But obviously nothing is ever as simple as it seems on the surface.

YANBU

sentences need to change and so does management when they leave prison they should in the very least be living in placements where they are highly monitored with tight restrictions around them, not that this will stop offenders re offending but it may catch them earlier if they do

I'd just say I think this was a much more complicated and nuanced case than people see it here.

Agree. Before I read the judgement WiggyPig posted I was all for stringing them up. Now I've read that I don't know what to think. I've certainly put my pitchfork away.