Judge Nicholas Rowland

[TonTonMacoute]

Must never be allowed to preside over a trial involving rape or sexual assault ever again.

This is an interesting article, and looks at sentencing guidelines and other complexities, but please don't let more victims suffer his complete lack of any empathy towards female victims.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a653d1ed-e178-41a7-bb03-3d433a704520?shareToken=b714a3cc871c7c657515b6594349108e

There's a petition
https://c.org/qhbdjXYs9V

I’m so glad to see the petition racking up the signatures. I signed it at about 500 earlier. Shocking decision by him. He needs his hard drive checking.

They should do a gov petition, then there's a chance of a gov response and debate. No chance with this one.

Womrn and girls have received the message loud and clear: we don't matter

It’s at nearly 20,000 already.

I am not aware of what the sentencing guidelines are for Rape but it appears to me that for this type of Rape there should be no outcome from the guidelines that provides for a non-custodial sentence. The sentencing guidelines need to be changed, these sentences examined to see if the judge has imposed them fairly or not and depending on the outcome of that the judge may need to be investigated. Where I say this type of Rape I mean that some Rapes are “consensual, statutory Rape” - 16 year old boy has sex with 15 year old partner, it is with “consent” and is Rape but MIGHT not be one where a custodial sentence is appropriate. My understanding was that there were no circumstances where this offence could be described as consensual. I don’t feel that comments such as “he needs his hard drive checking” are particularly helpful - I understand that the judge looks at various mitigating and aggravating factors when coming up with a sentence and has applied a sentence in accordance with the rules they have to follow, there seems to be a consensus that a female judge would be less likely to have imposed a non-custodial outcome and this is a good argument for sentencing panels.

If this were my daughter those boys would need to be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. I’d be postering their faces all over the county forever. If the justice system fails us like this, what else are we left with.

It does make you wonder whether one of the boys' fathers shook his hand on the way in.

It wasn't even just a questionably lenient sentence; it was no real sentence at all. It wasn't even the first time that they'd done something as horrific as this. How did he even get the job, if he doesn't understand how to do it? A teenager wouldn't even get a job in McDonald's if they persistently insisted that it was half a bun inside two burgers to make a cheeseburger, or if they gave people their food bag with the opening at the bottom... so how can somebody with no understanding of law and punishment for serious crime be given a job as a judge?

Is there no way of getting a judge who can have empathy with the victim and have an actual understanding of rhe seriousness of it - in the same way as a black judge would be in a much better position to grasp the full severity of a serious crime motivated by pure racial hatred? Surely they must have female judges - at the very least to overrule the ones like this who are clearly unfit for the task?

I don’t know about this judge, but currently many factors that make someone more likely to reoffend are treated as mitigating factors. Low intelligence, traumatic background, personality disorders. I think we need to shift the balance back towards public protection.

It seems that these boys had limited intellectual capacity and I am sure Rowland was obliged to take that into account. But this does not mean they do not know right from wrong. It is inconceivable that they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.

In this instance it seems clear to me that the need to send a message to women (and young vulnerable women in particular) that rape is taken seriously, that they will be heard and that rapists will be punished overrides the need to take into account these boys' own vulnerabilities.

Rapists must not be seen to walk free.

It does seem that this judge has an unbalanced view about the severity of the crime of rape judging by previous sentencing. This is not acceptable.

There is never a mitigating circumstance for rape. It is a hard enough crime to convict because of conflicting evidence over consent, but where the evidence is on film and unequivocally proven the punishment needs to be hard and swift.

It is sad that these boys are not very bright and have probably been influenced by what they have seen on screen and that their futures look bleak, but they cannot take away from this that a serious crime like rape can be swept under the carpet.

They are travellers that’s the main point

I’m wondering if there is some degree of transference here.
Does this judge identify in some way with males forcing their sexual needs on to females?
Above and beyond just the fact of him being a man that is.
It just seems such a perverse judgement.
So many aggravating factors and so much evidence.
Why is he more concerned with perpetrators than victims?

The message giveb has been "they dont understand what they did, so we wont ounish them, so they now think they did notjing wrong".

Meanwhile the gurls have to live kniwing those boys could appear at any moment.

Rape convictions are low. Women and girls dont go through with prosecutions due to the trauma. I dont blame anyone women who just walks away now.

Hopefully the united backlash to the lack of sentencing provides some comfort to the victims. They are the brave ones.

There is never a mitigating circumstance for rape.

This is an important point. Obviously there are mitigating circumstances for theft (eg someone might be impoverished, or they might be coerced by a gang-leader), and there are even mitigating circumstances for serious crimes such as assault or murder (someone might be unduly provoked or they might be a victim of abuse acting in self-protection) but I can't think of a single mitigating circumstance for rape.

And even if these boys have a low IQ, they knew exactly what they were doing. It was a vile, pre-meditated crime.

The message this sentence sends is that men can rape with impunity. We knew that already, of course - most rapes don't get prosecuted, and those that do often don't result in conviction. But now we know that even if you are convicted you can expect a slap on the hand and some warm words about what a nice person you are really.

Meanwhile, the poor victim who has been through the unbearable trauma of being raped, followed by the additional trauma of having to relive her experience in court, in front of her assailants, counts for nothing. Her feelings, her distress, the fact that her life has been ruined, are of no consequence.

The main point in the judge making the decision he did? I don't think so.

In what way is this the main point? It does not matter what their community/ethnic backgrounds are. What matters is that a serious crime is punished appropriately.

The majority of the travelling community will be as appalled as we are.

If these boys are not able to understand their actions then they need locking up to protect the public

Well it was announced a while ago that "minority" groups will receive lighter sentencing.
I believe this case has been referred back to the courts for unduly lenient sentencing

I think the judge in this case has made a complete mess. Dragging out the process for all parties. I assume this will be appealed and the boys will end up with custodial sentences but it will take another year to sort out. Absolutely outrageous

The judge is not going to say you’re travellers you get off but this is the sub text here. I forgot that there was a ruling that minorities get a lighter rap bloody awful the judge needs to be sent down himself

I'm not sure it's completely true - from a legal standpoint - to say that no real sentence at all was handed down. (Please take this in the spirit of looking at this from a legal POV. My own personal opinion is that the sentences are a disgrace.)

If you look at the sentencing guidelines, a YRO with ISS - which is what NR handed down - is the second harshest sentence which can be passed. In order to hand down a custodial sentence, not only does the crime have to be particularly severe (as I agree this was) but the judge also has to justify why a YRO with ISS is not appropriate. In other words, a custodial sentence would only be passed where there is literally no other option:

"If a custodial sentence is imposed, the court must state its reasons for being satisfied that the offence is so serious that no other sanction would be appropriate and, in particular, why a YRO with ISS or fostering could not be justified.

Where a custodial sentence is unavoidable the length of custody imposed must be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offence."

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/sexual-offences-sentencing-children-and-young-people/

It's not right and I fully understand the outrage this case has generated. But in my opinion the issue is with the law and sentencing guidelines and not with the judge.

This.

No it wasn't. The sentencing guidelines apply to everyone.

You're thinking of the furore which was generated earlier this year by the expansion of the range of pre-sentencing reports which are prepared to help judges determine sentences and which are prepared for an entire gamut of vulnerable groups including pregnant women.

His actions were a complete disgrace, the boys “ limited intelligence “ didn’t stop them posting their vile crime on social media, they are criminals there is no point not wanting to criminalise them. He should be held accountable for what he did with regard to the sentence, hopefully it is overturned.

I agree that this is a problem with the sentencing system. I don’t think a conviction for rape (like hens teeth as it is) should ever be able to have a non custodial sentence. Especially with all the aggravating factors these rapes had (premeditated, gang, filming and sharing online, weapons).

I agree, it’s extraordinarily crass saying that he didn’t want to “criminalise them unnecessarily” - they’re fucking rapists.