Judge’s reasons published
Sentencing remarks in Fordingbridge rape case explain non-custodial sentences
More details have emerged of why two teenage boys convicted of raping two young girls at Fordingbridge, Hampshire, were given non-custodial sentences by Judge Nicholas Rowland at Southampton Crown Court on 21 May.
An edited transcript has been made of the judge’s sentencing remarks and I expect this to be published later today on the judiciary website.
The two boys were each given youth rehabilitation orders for three years with intensive supervision and surveillance for 180 days. Each was subject to an overnight curfew and other requirements.
Rowland said that the boy referred to as J had spent 462 days subject to a qualifying curfew and 27 days detained in secure local authority accommodation. “Hence an effective sentence of almost 18 months has been served,” the judge said. “That is a significant feature when determining whether an immediate custodial sentence must follow.”
The second boy, referred to as N, had spent 461 days on a qualifying curfew plus 20 days in local authority accommodation, which the judge said was the equivalent of a 17-month sentence. “Again, that is a significant feature when determining whether an immediate custodial sentence must follow.”
Rowland was reported as saying he would avoid “criminalising” the boys unecessarily. In context, it is clear he was referring to requirements set out in past cases.
He explained:
I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, understand the effects of their behaviour on the two girls and their families and promote the boys’ reintegration into society.
A third boy, E, played a lesser role and did not qualify for a custodial sentence.
Earlier, the judge had addressed the boys themselves in plain language. He told them:
I must do what is most likely to make sure you do not do these things again and work out what is best for you. I also have to decide whether what you did was so serious that you need to go away from your homes. And that means prison: you all know what that means. N and J, you have been to the equivalent of a young person’s prison already in relation to this case.
In deciding that, I have read all the things that people have written about you, even though you did do these things and I have also read about difficulties you each have. To begin with each of you was very young at the time you did these things. None of you had been in any big trouble before, not been in any trouble after January of last year. You have all done well to stick to the rules since January of last year where you could live, what time you could go out. J and N spent some time in that young person’s prison and so I have to remember that when I decide what you should do now.
Your families have been helping you. I saw them when the trial was going on for all those weeks and they should be trying to help you even more now. I have read what doctors have said, that each of you have problems to do with thinking, N and E your problems are really quite bad.
I have decided that none of you need to go to prison today. Instead, I am going to make you speak to people like Janine, who J has met, Jon for N and Michelle for E, and they’ll make sure that you do things so that you do not do the things that the jury decided you did do. But they will also make sure that you have a punishment for the serious things that you did.
So it is not easy, the outcome of today, what it is that you have to do. For J and N, you will for the next three years have to do as you are told by Janine and Jon. For E it will be a year and a half. Those are long times and they are meant to be.
I am not going to go through now what it is that you must do and what you must not do, because later on I am going to go through that in detail. Your barristers will tell you about that.
Let me tell you what will happen if you do not do those things that you are told to do or if you do something you are not supposed to do. You will come back to court and then you might well go to a young person’s prison.
Comment
It is clear from the transcript that the judge was speaking from notes but occasionally departed from them.
In cases thought likely to attract media and public attention, judges are encouraged to prepare their sentencing remarks in advance and make them available to reporters immediately after delivering them.
It’s that aspect that worries me. Of course these are edited notes and may not be entirely accurate but if they are they show a large lacuna in the judge’s reasoning namely the effect on the victims, not only of the offences but also of having to give evidence and be cross examined.
Of course what a judge must not do is to increase a sentence due to a not guilty plea, but when I first heard about the sentence without knowing more of the background I assumed they had pleaded guilty and taken full responsibility for their crimes.
It “feels” wrong to me and I’m glad it’s been referred to the CA and I look forward to its adjudication.
It is inherently unlikely that two main perpetrators started their offending with Rapes .There are some reports that at least one of them had engaged in crimes of violence and sexual harassment but was not charged presumably because the WOKE notion was not to Criminalize them .(There are reports that these previous crimes were not disclosed to the Court) .If so ,it seemed to have given these teenagers licence to graduate to more serious criminality presumably in the expectation the Court would go softly so as not to "criminalize" them. People who commit crimes must be punished .That punishment must be sufficiently strong as to deter them from the commission of crimes in the future and to deter others who might be inclined to criminal conduct .This was an horrific sentencing decision .It sends a message to teenage boys that rape will not land them in custody for period of years. The decision is a betrayal of the victims , their rights to justice and the wider community .To suggest that those who commit crimes, particularly serious crimes ,should avoid proper punishment because if some woke notion that they should not be "criminalized" is in my opinion grotesque and perverse. UNLESS wrongdoing is met with a commensurate adverse consequence there is no effective deterrent to future offending. This case is an exemplar of what happens when teenagers avoid proper punishment; it fuels escalation. It is no coincidence that this wrong headed sentencing guidance results in teenagers behaving in feral behaviour in public .