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.

@YourAmplePlumPoster worrying about criminalising teenagers who have raped and filmed 2 girls, after careful planning, would appear to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

@Lmnop22 I haven’t claimed to have any knowledge, just assumption. No need to be so tetchy.

No that's fine. I think it's an interesting discussion around raising the age of criminal responsibility, and I'm not sure what side of the fence I'm on yet.

It's sobering though to think that under these proposals how close these boys would be to unprosecutable, but we'd have to do a lot of soul searching as a nation. I don't think there's the appetite for it politically anyway, as it would be incredibly unpopular.

You’re probably right, but we also need to consider that sentences should have a deterrent effect - we don’t want teenage boys thinking there is Carte Blanche to rape. Plus the victims need to be considered, the girls need to see society is on their side, and that concern for the offenders’ outcomes is not viewed as more important than justice for the victims.

To be honest, the defence had positioned the perpetrators as very low intelligence and they were from a community regularly ostracized & discriminated against. I wouldnt be surprised if he was treading a nightmare line between the obvious threat they pose to society, and:

• the guidance pushing for leniency where children are concerned
• not wanting to be accused of having over punished children with learning disabilities
• not wanting to be accused of excessively harsh sentencing of a minority group often discriminated against

That said it was insane sentencing for planned, filmed rapes & he should not judge cases of this nature ever again.

And as soon as we are ready to pay for that message, we can send it. The end-to-end criminal justice system is on its knees and successive governments have, at best, tinkered around the edges, at worst, deliberately underfunded it, knowing the likely consequences.

There are similar cases happening elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/29/teenage-boys-rape-sentencing-youth-courts

Which makes me wonder if the media particularly picked up on this one because of the minority group the perpetrators might belong to. It would be a dog whistle, reported on social media, but not mentioned in mainstream media.

I don't mean by this that it should not have been reported and come under scrutiny, but it looks like the tip of an iceberg.

The typos in the judgement don't fill me with confidence

The judge is a danger to justice. He’s very obviously a misogynist. The laws need to be changed. If I made such a poor and clearly biased decision in my workplace, there would be consequences for me.

Yes, male judges only seem to worry about rapists ' lives being "blighted", no care or empathy for the female victims, its beyond shocking that nothing changes, misogyny rules. I honestly don't think i would talk to the police or look to our court's for justice uf i was a victim now and i would never suggest to any woman that they should report. I think women should be allowed to carry tazers - or at the very least mace as women can in U S A..

No, it won't be disastrous. As has been pointed out, sentences are changed by the Court of Appeal regularly. If we sacked every judge concerned, we would have none left.

He followed the sentencing guidelines, and therefore this is not the horrendous error some people think - it's very much a matter of discretion and judgment. Really this case, including the appeal, shows the system working precisely as it should; we can't expect infallibility, and that is precisely why we have an appeal system in place.

Well he has been very publicly and professionally embarrassed.

Of course, I am obviously just as bad as three boys, who were old enough and smart enough to premeditate and to hold two young girls down and rape them, while filming.

Because I think they will remain a threat and a blight to society.

Why wouldn't I deserve to be locked in prison with rapists for wanting rapists locked in prison?

Makes perfect sense.

He did not follow the guidelines! He ignored several points for sentencing, hence they have been changed today.

This.

I work in this area and am regularly stunned by what offences get a YRO and not custody - firearms offences, sec 18 offences wounding with intent, GBH as well as rape offences. So I don't think its down to misogyny.

This one caught the medias attention but I think the public would be shocked if they knew the court outcomes day to day.

It's deemed a bad thing, indicative of possible system failures if a YOT has 'too many' custodial sentences given to children in a year and the aim is always to bring the number down.

It would be considered very bad form and not 'child first' to want a child to go to prison.

Are you saying the girls were complicit in their rapes then @DannyDeever then? That they are somehow to blame?

And what about “child first” for the victims? Those who have been raped, robbed, assaulted, threatened?
they don’t matter do they? They of course have to realise that expecting their attackers to have to see consequences for their actions is nasty, awful “retribution” as one poster has said, and this is just unfair, and they need to how negative it is for the attackers, it may even harm the poor souls job prospects…

I think the poster was alluding to the current thinking in the judiciary. That putting young people in the criminal justice system creates a lot of long term problems.

Well maybe if those carrying out these criminal acts are seen to actually have consequences, it won’t look so attractive to others. There are little to no consequences for violent criminal acts by those below certain ages, so why not rob, attack rape etc, especially when you will get to have people fawning over you tell you that, “yes it’s you, poor lamb who is the victim here.. you don’t know any better, none of this is your fault”

YABU. You can’t control the judiciary like that.

No. I'm saying that before I read the judgement WiggyPig posted I was all for stringing them up and that having read that I don't know what to think.

I agree with you and constantly champion the victims.

I was instrumental in helping set up dedicated workers to work with victims.

But it's the prevailing attitude.

A few years ago there was a huge push for more trauma-informed practice (meaning the developmental trauma experienced by the DC committing offences) and something called ECM enhanced case management was funded widely and led by Psychologists. The tagline being instead of asking what have you done? we should be asking what happened to you. My opinion was the focus should be on both but many people seem to have interpreted it as having experienced trauma, or having mental health difficulties or ND means somehow less responsible for their offences (offence is another word not liked by many, it's seen as judgemental).

Whereas my opinion is that can often make children and adults more dangerous and being sympathetic is a natural feeling but it shouldn't interfere with protecting the public or happen at the expense of victims. I also don't think it does the DC much good in the long run if you don't at the same time work with them around accountability.

ECM has lost funding in many areas because it was supposed to reduce reoffending but didn't. Which I predicted would be the case.

Judges who fail should be able to be sacked or removed from office, whatever the correct term is.

Agree.

I think you’re missing the point. The big concern is the consequences for the rest of society for the rest of the young person's life, if they are set/confirmed on a path of criminality.