Is this justice for rape ? (Albeit by boys aged 14)

[southcoastpunter]

External Link/Members Only

Seems to me that this isn’t right or appropriate for such a serious crime especially in view of how it was carried out! Ok the guys were only 14 but imo they were certainly old enough to know exactly what they were doing!

[chuck_88]

External Link/Members Only

Seems to me that this isn’t right or appropriate for such a serious crime especially in view of how it was carried out! Ok the guys were only 14 but imo they were certainly old enough to know exactly what they were doing!

Disgusting sentence, lock them up and throw away the key.

[Ghost89]

And that “sentence” is exactly why society is like it is. There is no consequences for such abhorrent people. As a result they will likely repeat their crimes thinking they can get away with it. Soft judges have no place in court and I hope the families of the girls appeal the leniency.

[bigden40]

Cut off their goolies

[mr.bluesky]

Cut off their goolies

And ram them down their throats until they choke.

[PepeMAGA]

Punishment aside, I don't see how they can be allowed such lenient sentences when they're clearly a danger to the public.
Premeditated violent rape.

[MissWolf]

Absolutely disgusting excuse for a sentence that basically says to any young boy that you can do as you please and get away with it.

This was clearly in one incident at least a premeditated attack, they found the victim on snapchat and fooled her into believing that she was meeting one boy for a first date, once there his two mates turned up.

Maybe that twat of a judge wants to relook at that sentence and put his daughter in the place of the victims, I can guarantee he wouldn't be so lenient then.

Disgusting, they need locking up for a good length of time, some serious therapy and to be on the sex offenders register for life, to give them a restraining order for ten years to prevent them contacting their victims is madness, it should be for life ffs

I don't think I've ever felt more like hitting a judge in my life 

[PilotMan]

That is sending a clear message to society and young men especially.

Don't worry if you carry out an abhorrent crime that changes the lives of the victims, we'll just give you a rap on the knuckles and you can re-integrate yourself in to society at your leisure.

The CPS need to appeal that sentence.

[timsussex]

 Yet another outrageous sentence - there are far too many - but did the judge depart from sentencing guidelines or more likely are those guidelines wrong ?

We need a committee of normal people to review these guidelines

No judges, No politicians and No lawyers - well perhaps we will allow one of each but the huge majority should be normal people

[bigden40]

Yet another outrageous sentence - there are far too many - but did the judge depart from sentencing guidelines or more likely are those guidelines wrong ?

We need a committee of normal people to review these guidelines

No judges, No politicians and No lawyers - well perhaps we will allow one of each but the huge majority should be normal people

I asked Grok about this:

Yes, the judge appears to have departed significantly from what adult sentencing guidelines would require, but this is likely justified (or at least permitted) under the specific rules for sentencing children and young people.

Key facts from the case
•  Three boys (aged 13–14 at the time of the offences, now 14–15) were convicted of 11 counts of rape (plus indecent images) in two separate attacks on girls aged 14 and 15
•  The attacks were described as brazen, filmed on phones (with laughing and encouragement), and involved elements like cornering a victim, fear of violence, and cutting clothing.
•  Sentences: Two boys received 3-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs) with intensive supervision/surveillance (180 days); the youngest got an 18-month YRO. Plus curfews and 10-year restraining orders. No immediate custody.

The judge (Nicholas Rowland) explicitly prioritised their “very young” ages, limited understanding of consent, peer pressure, low maturity/IQ issues in some cases, and rehabilitation over punishment, stating he should “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and support reintegration.

Sentencing guidelines context:

For adult offenders, rape (especially of children/teens with aggravating factors like multiple perpetrators, recording, and trauma) has high starting points — often 10+ years custody (Category 1–3 under the Sexual Offences guidelines), with maximum life imprisonment. Multiple counts and filming would push sentences higher.

For children/young people (under 18), different rules apply:
•  The Sentencing Council has specific overarching principles for sentencing children and young people, emphasising rehabilitation, maturity (chronological + emotional), and avoiding unnecessary criminalisation where possible. The focus is more on the offender’s welfare and future than pure punishment.
•  There are tailored guidelines for sexual offences by youths. Custody is possible (and often used for serious rapes), but YROs with intensive supervision are a recognised community alternative, especially for younger offenders with lower maturity or other mitigating factors.
•  YROs can include heavy requirements (supervision, curfews, monitoring) and are the youth equivalent of community orders. Breaches can lead to custody.

Judges must treat youths differently and can impose non-custodial sentences even for grave offences if it aligns with the principles (e.g., high prospect of rehabilitation, low reoffending risk after intervention). Precedents exist for YROs in serious youth sex cases. 
Has the judge departed?
•  From adult guidelines: Yes, dramatically. These facts would almost certainly result in long prison terms for adults.
•  From youth guidelines: Probably not unlawfully. The judge followed the required emphasis on age, maturity, and rehabilitation.

However, the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner (and many public commentators) called the sentences “far too lenient” and lacking deterrence/comfort for victims. Victims described severe ongoing trauma.

The Attorney General can refer “unduly lenient” sentences to the Court of Appeal for review (common in high-profile cases). The PCC has offered support for any victim appeal.

In summary, the outcome reflects youth-specific rules rather than a rogue decision, but it is at the very lenient end even for juveniles given the number and nature of the rapes. This has sparked understandable debate about balancing rehabilitation with justice and public protection.

[Jerboa]

The judge should be in jail as well as the boys. The judicary has been corrupted by the woke mind virus, there needs to be a root and branch reform of the judicary of this country.

[Blackpool Rock]

Yet another outrageous sentence - there are far too many - but did the judge depart from sentencing guidelines or more likely are those guidelines wrong ?

We need a committee of normal people to review these guidelines

No judges, No politicians and No lawyers - well perhaps we will allow one of each but the huge majority should be normal people

I think we can all agree that the sentence in this case was a sick joke and I expect it to be increased on appeal however when it comes to law and order / sentencing the public increasing want stronger and stronger sentences for more and more minor crimes.

Multiple Murder - Lock them up and throw away the key
Single murder -Lock them up and throw away the key
Serious assault / GBH leaving someone with permanent disability - Lock them up and throw away the key
Kiddie fiddlers - Lock them up and throw away the key
Assault / GBH leaving someone with mental issues like anxiety - Lock them up and throw away the key
Rape - Lock them up and throw away the key
Theft of £Millions - Lock them up and throw away the key
House burglary - Lock them up and throw away the key
Stealing your car - Lock them up and throw away the key
Petty theft - Lock them up and throw away the key
Playing loud music late at night - Lock them up and throw away the key
Walking on the cracks in the pavement - Lock them up and throw away the key
Someone making a noise when the eat - Hanging's too good for them 

At what point do members of the public on average see the cut off point  I'm sure that if you've been sleep deprived for years due to loud music or noisy neighbours arguing late at night etc then you'd want stricter sentences for them etc

The public perception of what sentence should be given and the reality are very different, also the reality of what's actually achievable given the constraints of prison spaces
And I don't think this is down to modern sentencing just being soft on people compared to years ago as my understanding is that sentences have actually increased over the years

[Strawberry]

Absolutely disgusting excuse for a sentence that basically says to any young boy that you can do as you please and get away with it.

This was clearly in one incident at least a premeditated attack, they found the victim on snapchat and fooled her into believing that she was meeting one boy for a first date, once there his two mates turned up.

Maybe that twat of a judge wants to relook at that sentence and put his daughter in the place of the victims, I can guarantee he wouldn't be so lenient then.

Disgusting, they need locking up for a good length of time, some serious therapy and to be on the sex offenders register for life, to give them a restraining order for ten years to prevent them contacting their victims is madness, it should be for life ffs

I don't think I've ever felt more like hitting a judge in my life 

I was looking for the sex offenders register in the article I read, very surprised it isn't part of their sentence. However this website page suggests they may be placed on it automatically, but not for long because they have not received a custodial sentence;

External Link/Members Only.

As you say this wasn't a children messing around, it was planned and the girls subjected to a horrendous ordeal which will stay with them.

Utter mockery.

[Colston36]

I understand it has been shown that the difference between right and wrong becomes clear at a very early age. They knew they were doing wrong, and should be treated accordingly.

[PilotMan]

Considering that the age of criminal responsibility is 10, it baffles me that 14 year olds who carefully planned an horrendous crime, can be given such an incommensurate sentence.

[badsin]

Look's like this sentence will be reviewed.
Maybe the judge should also have his position reviewed 

[DastardlyDick]

Look's like this sentence will be reviewed.
Maybe the judge should also have his position reviewed 

External Link/Members Only

[Adoniron]

Clearly unduly lenient because

1 They raped 2 girls
2 They filmed it and posted it online
3 They pleaded not guilty

Were they nice boys from middle families and the judge empathised with them more than if they were from a council estate and he didnt want to ruin their futures?

[badsin]

Clearly unduly lenient because

1 They raped 2 girls
2 They filmed it and posted it online
3 They pleaded not guilty

Were they nice boys from middle families and the judge empathised with them more than if they were from a council estate and he didnt want to ruin their futures?

Their background is easily found

[PepeMAGA]

Their background is easily found

I can't see anything about this, assume it would be protected due to to their age?

[southcoastpunter]

I haven’t seen anything about backgrounds either - however Fordingbridge is generally an affluent area but I think adoniron’s assumptions may say a lot about his political views! ( which we aren’t allowed to discuss here)

[bigden40]

Their background is easily found

I don’t know what the insinuation is but by all accounts they were local boys.  It was noted in the judges summing up that they were low IQ with one being bottom 1%.

I thought Badenoch's statement on this was as spot on

I have been sickened all day by the news of three boys who lured two schoolgirls, raped them, and filmed it on their phones while they laughed and egged each other on. When they finally stood before a judge this week, they were handed “rehabilitation orders” and walked out without serving a single day behind bars. Not in prison, not in custody or a young offender institution.

The judge said, “None of you need to go to prison”.

What message does that send to rapists? The crime could hardly be graver, yet the punishment was no punishment at all. It’s the collapse of consequences and the rot runs right through the justice system.

And this is only going to get worse because Labour are choosing  to go soft on criminals:

❌ They have abolished short prison sentences.
❌ They have let tens of thousands of criminals out early.
❌ And now they want to raise the age of criminal responsibility, so that even MORE young offenders escape any consequence at all.

My position is common sense👇
PRISON WORKS.

✅It punishes those who do wrong, it keeps dangerous people off our streets and away from our children.
✅It tells every victim that the law is on their side.

A country that forgets this is a country where schoolgirls are raped and filmed for sport, and the boys who did it get to home.

[PepeMAGA]

I don’t know what the insinuation is but by all accounts they were local boys.  It was noted in the judges summing up that they were low IQ with one being bottom 1%.

Sufficiently high IQ to preplan this so sufficient enough for prison.

Interestingly , I went back to look at the Bulger case and what happened with those boys. Apparently 8 years each. The government at the time tried to extend it to 15 years but that got reversed by the courts.
The ECHR said it was an unfair trial because they were tried in an adult court.
And there were about 500 protesters outside the court, presumably wanting them to be handled more gently 🙄

[badsin]

Their background is easily found

An article in the daily mail, from around march this year, identifies their background.
I stumbled upon it yesterday

[DastardlyDick]

Clearly unduly lenient because

1 They raped 2 girls
2 They filmed it and posted it online
3 They pleaded not guilty

Were they nice boys from middle families and the judge empathised with them more than if they were from a council estate and he didnt want to ruin their futures?

I agree, their background should be irrelevant - they raped these girls repeatedly and clearly saw nothing wrong in what they were doing, otherwise why post it on SM for anyone to see. What possessed them to go not guilty is beyond me, but I have only seen the evidence in the media.
They need locking up for a long time.

[bigden40]

Sufficiently high IQ to preplan this so sufficient enough for prison.

Interestingly , I went back to look at the Bulger case and what happened with those boys. Apparently 8 years each. The government at the time tried to extend it to 15 years but that got reversed by the courts.
The ECHR said it was an unfair trial because they were tried in an adult court.
And there were about 500 protesters outside the court, presumably wanting them to be handled more gently 🙄

Indeed. I don’t think the low IQ is any justification.

[timsussex]

Indeed. I don’t think the low IQ is any justification.

I suppose the argument is if the age of legal responsibility is 10 should that be physical age or mental age ?
In either case it cannot be absolutely binary (ie 9 years and 255 days old you are  immune but 10 years and 1 day full force of the law )

Personally I would reduce their sentence ........................... from 20 years to 19 !

[Adoniron]

I haven’t seen anything about backgrounds either - however Fordingbridge is generally an affluent area but I think adoniron’s assumptions may say a lot about his political views! ( which we aren’t allowed to discuss here)

It's nothing to do with political views and more with how judges and magistrates empathise with those from their own class and background.

[badsin]

It's nothing to do with political views and more with how judges and magistrates empathise with those from their own class and background.

These lads would doubtful have anything whatsoever in common with a court judge 

[DeadFox]

Should be sentenced as adults and jailed until they are 18. Then capital punishment.

[badsin]

Should be sentenced as adults and jailed until they are 18. Then capital punishment.

Whatever happened to Borstal, or YOI''s..... I mean, what would you have to do to get in, if this doesn't warrant a custodial sentence?

[DastardlyDick]

Whatever happened to Borstal, or YOI''s..... I mean, what would you have to do to get in, if this doesn't warrant a custodial sentence?

Like the rest of the Prison Estate, they're at, or very near, capacity.

[badsin]

BBC News - Why did I put myself through the pain of going to court, says rape victim - BBC News
External Link/Members Only

Interview with one of the victims. A very strong young woman.

[PepeMAGA]

BBC News - Why did I put myself through the pain of going to court, says rape victim - BBC News
External Link/Members Only

Interview with one of the victims. A very strong young woman.

I saw that. Good that all political parties seem to be aligned that it needs reviewing.
If nothing else you would think the judge would think to himself " if I pass this sentence I'm going to look like a right cunt"

[snaitram99]

I don’t know what the insinuation is but by all accounts they were local boys.  It was noted in the judges summing up that they were low IQ with one being bottom 1%.

If their IQ really was that low they would hardly be able to function in daily life.

[Stevelondon]

Far too many judges still in work who need to be fucking put out to grass.
Far too many sentences just don’t fit the crime in this country.

Disgusting little bastards ruining peoples lives and just walking away from it as if they had been done for shoplifting.

If it was not actually true. You wouldn’t believe it would you. ?

Your daughter, your little girl. ………. How would you feel. ?

Me……… I’d be ‘Not the nine o’clock news’……… cut of their goolies.

I fucking mean it.

[DastardlyDick]

If their IQ really was that low they would hardly be able to function in daily life.

Bottom 1% of the population, not an IQ of 1%, I think 

[george r]

Quite a lot on the news this morning about this hopefully they will get sent down for a long stretch

[snaitram99]

Bottom 1% of the population, not an IQ of 1%, I think 

I know. IQ is a number not a percentage. Bottom 1% equates to an IQ of about 65, what used to be called ESN (Educationally Subnormal), which is not PC and anyway was misused.

[bigden40]

I know. IQ is a number not a percentage. Bottom 1% equates to an IQ of about 65, what used to be called ESN (Educationally Subnormal), which is not PC and anyway was misused.

Also, technically, the definition of a moron.

[DastardlyDick]

I know. IQ is a number not a percentage. Bottom 1% equates to an IQ of about 65, what used to be called ESN (Educationally Subnormal), which is not PC and anyway was misused.

I think SEN - Special Education Needs - is the correct term now.
Trouble is, with the OFSTED rating system, schools are quite quick to classify kids as SEN because then their proportion of A grades goes up and they get a better review. I am not in the Educational establishment, so this is second hand information, so if I'm wrong, I apologise.

[Jerboa]

Far too many judges still in work who need to be fucking put out to grass.
Far too many sentences just don’t fit the crime in this country.

Disgusting little bastards ruining peoples lives and just walking away from it as if they had been done for shoplifting.

If it was not actually true. You wouldn’t believe it would you. ?

Your daughter, your little girl. ………. How would you feel. ?

Me……… I’d be ‘Not the nine o’clock news’……… cut of their goolies.

I fucking mean it.

This case just highlights the problem we have in our judicary, where judges mitigate for defendents on baseless criteria and or social equity score. The judge needs to be kicked out of the judicary and his robes burnt in front of the clown.

[Doc Holliday]

Also, technically, the definition of a moron.

Rather spookily this came up in conversation yesterday with a family member who is a long retired teacher. You are historically correct.

There were three terms the 'psychs' used to to classify low IQ levels. Moron was circa 50 to 70 and Imbecile was 25 to 50. Both terms are now seen as derogatory and fallen out of use, yet the lowest IQ (0 to 25) was termed Idiot which is still in common usage (including frequently on UKP) and deemed acceptable

[snaitram99]

I think SEN - Special Education Needs - is the correct term now.
Trouble is, with the OFSTED rating system, schools are quite quick to classify kids as SEN because then their proportion of A grades goes up and they get a better review. I am not in the Educational establishment, so this is second hand information, so if I'm wrong, I apologise.

I think SEN covers a wider range of problems than ESN would have.

Not sure either is relevant though, since these boys were capable of planning the,assaults, tricking the girls, and technically savvy enough to film and upload what they did.

[timsussex]

I think SEN covers a wider range of problems than ESN would have.

Not sure either is relevant though, since these boys were capable of planning the,assaults, tricking the girls, and technically savvy enough to film and upload what they did.

My 6 year old grandaughter can use a phone to take pictures and videos and writes stories at school
I think that many 8&9 year olds send texts
so they are not signs of children reaching the age of 10 or being criminally responsible

[snaitram99]

My 6 year old grandaughter can use a phone to take pictures and videos and writes stories at school
I think that many 8&9 year olds send texts
so they are not signs of children reaching the age of 10 or being criminally responsible

Not sure what your point is here.
Are you saying the boys did not realise that raping the girls at knifepoint and filming it for "socials" was wrong?

Actually if that had somehow been established then the case would not have proceeded.

[WARSZAWA16]

Now referred to the Court of Appeal.
External Link/Members Only

[Snagbadjer]

I'd hang all of them from the nearest tree.

[Adoniron]

Not sure what your point is here.
Are you saying the boys did not realise that raping the girls at knifepoint and filming it for "socials" was wrong?

Actually if that had somehow been established then the case would not have proceeded.

Yes it would. It would only be necessary to prove that they had sex without consent. They don't need to know its wrong. If they did, every defendant to any charge would say they didn't know they were breaking the law.

[timsussex]

Yes it would. It would only be necessary to prove that they had sex without consent. They don't need to know its wrong. If they did, every defendant to any charge would say they didn't know they were breaking the law.

Indeed
ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one),