Teenage gang rape case

[icowden]

Cognitively impaired but smart enough to make sure there were 3 of them there when each girl was raped and smart enough to film it and circulate it.

If you read the remarks, they did not plan to have 3 of them there. There was no pre-planning or suggestion of such. There was consenting sexual activity on both occasions. The Judge is very clear about this.

On the first occasion J and C had consensual sex in the open. Later on they were joined by N but not E. At this point non-consensual activity occurred with J as the principle and N the encourager, and then with N alone. Both J and N were involved in the recording.

On the second occasion L alleges she was forced to go with the boys at knifepoint. The Judge makes very clear that if there was any evidence that this happened, the sentence would be very different. Kidnap was not one of the offences admitted to trial. Based on the evidence L was keen to have sexual activity with J and indeed they engaged in consensual sexual activity at first away from the group then returned to the group holding hands. J and N then engaged in sexual activity with L but the filming was non-consensual. J was the principle, N the encourager again. E was present and was an encourager only. J left then N raped L with E again as an encourager.

Low IQ does not in itself mean they didn't understand that the victims didn't consent.

However, the degree of consent was variable and difficult to ascertain. Both victims willingly engaged with J but then things got out of control.

'Bottom 1% of his peers in IQ tests' does not mean mentally sub normal and lots of kids with an IQ of around 65 are in mainstream education.

The Judge felt that N presented more like an 8 year old than a 14 year old and Judged him to be significantly impaired in his understanding. The same was true for E.

The 14 year old assailant who the judge decided didn't have a condition that was relevant seems to have been let off detention because he was under peer pressure. He's assessed as 'high risk to female children'.

He was not let off. He was sentenced according to the detailed sentencing guidelines and requirements for sentencing children. This is based on likelihood of reoffending, previous offending and whether you like it or not, the Judge is required to rehabilitate children to ensure that they do not become adult offenders. Their behaviour whilst on remand was exemplary. He specifically stated that the offences of which J and N were convicted crossed the custody threshold but the guidelines for sentencing of children do not require the imposition of immediate custody and that custody of children of J and Ns ages should be a last resort.

None of these children were "let off". Only morons think that a 3 year sentence is getting off scott free. Each of them has a Youth Rehabilitation Order for 3 years with intensive supervision and surveillance for 180 days, Specialist Harmful Sexual Behaviour Intervention and Prohibited Activity Requirements including curfews with tagging for 3 months. The ISS is the equivalent of a prison sentence but is carried out i the community. The remaining 180 days is the equivalent of being release on license.

Read the Judgement.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've read it. 2 separate girls consented to some form of sexual activity with an individual boy whom they knew via the internet. Then on both occasions, 2 mates turned up and consent was withdrawn but they had oral and vaginal sex with the girl anyway. A total of 17 sexual offences between the 3 of them. And filmed it.

It doesn't say 'exemplary' behaviour. It says they kept to the restrictions imposed pre trial. So would I if I was awaiting trial for rape.

The judge admitted the offences crossed the custody threshold but chose to use his discretion to impose non custodial sentences.
I don't think he should have.

 

[icowden]

The judge admitted the offences crossed the custody threshold but chose to use his discretion to impose non custodial sentences.
I don't think he should have.

So you think he should have ignored the guidelines that he is supposed to follow?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The guidelines are guidelines. I don't think he should have used the discretion he is allowed within the guidelines to impose the penalty he did. I think it undermines public confidence in the legal process and will deter victims from coming forward. We know sexual offences are already underreported and I think victims who find themselves in similar circumstances - where they have consented to sex with one individual but not with others - will think there is no point reporting their rape.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Have the Law Officers formally referred this case to the Court of Appeal under the 'undue lenience' provisions?

 

[BoldonLad]

The guidelines are guidelines. I don't think he should have used the discretion he is allowed within the guidelines to impose the penalty he did. I think it undermines public confidence in the legal process and will deter victims from coming forward. We know sexual offences are already underreported and I think victims who find themselves in similar circumstances - where they have consented to sex with one individual but not with others - will think there is no point reporting their rape.

I think it interesting that low IQ is deemed a mitigating factor for rape, I wonder would it also be a mitigating factor for other offences (eg ABH, GBH, robbery, manslaughte, etc). If yes, would other mental health conditions similarly be mitigating factors?

Does public safety feature anywhere in these decisions?

There may be a lot more to this case than we are aware of, but, like you, I feel that the judge has shown scant regard to the victim here, and a lot of regard to the well being of the rapists.

 

[Mr Celine]

I think it interesting that low IQ is deemed a mitigating factor for rape, I wonder would it also be a mitigating factor for other offences (eg ABH, GBH, robbery, manslaughte, etc). If yes, would other mental health conditions similarly be mitigating factors?

Does public safety feature anywhere in these decisions?

There may be a lot more to this case than we are aware of, but, like you, I feel that the judge has shown scant regard to the victim here, and a lot of regard to the well being of the rapists.

Low IQ is not a mental health condition.

 

[icowden]

The guidelines are guidelines.

This word you use. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I assume that you think that because the word "guideline" is being used, you think the Judge can ignore it.
Quite simply they cannot. If they sentence outside of the guidelines they must provide a full and strict legal explanation of the departure from the guideline, and they open up the sentence to an appeal if the defence team think that the sentencing is unreasonable.

Put quite simply, there has to be a lot of extenuating circumstance and evidence to justify departing from them.

I don't think he should have used the discretion he is allowed within the guidelines to impose the penalty he did. I think it undermines public confidence in the legal process and will deter victims from coming forward.

Obviously Judge Rowland has only been a barrister for 25 years and a Judge for 21 years, so he's probably only just getting the hang of it. Perhaps you should offer your legal advice to him, or to the team that will be appealing the sentence as too lenient. Where exactily do you think he erred in law?

We know sexual offences are already underreported and I think victims who find themselves in similar circumstances - where they have consented to sex with one individual but not with others - will think there is no point reporting their rape.

Why? If the newspapers correctly reported the sentence and the impact of it, they would understand that these boys are being both punished and rehabilitated so that they do not reoffend.

Stop reading the Daily Mail.

 

[icowden]

I think it interesting that low IQ is deemed a mitigating factor for rape, I wonder would it also be a mitigating factor for other offences (eg ABH, GBH, robbery, manslaughte, etc). If yes, would other mental health conditions similarly be mitigating factors?

I think "low IQ" was being used a convenient descriptor rather than referring to the specific learning difficulties and other mental health conditions. And yes it would, because if someone does not understand what they are doing is wrong, it cannot strictly be said that they intentionally did something wrong - and that must be taken into account. Usually people in that position are being coerced or controlled by someone who very much does know what they are doing.

Does public safety feature anywhere in these decisions?

Of course. That's why these kids are being rehabilitated - to improve public safety. Sending them on a custodial so that they can be release as angry adult rapists with a drug problem and no work prospects is not the best outcome.

There may be a lot more to this case than we are aware of, but, like you, I feel that the judge has shown scant regard to the victim here, and a lot of regard to the well being of the rapists.

I think the sentencing remarks give a very good sense that there is an awful lot more here than we are aware of. His job is not to ensure the well being of the rapists but to ensure that they do not reoffend. That's the design of our justice system.

The USA has one built around punishment. It's hardly a poster child for success.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Stop reading the Daily Mail.

There was a time you were able to discuss things on here without being a bit of a prat. You seem to be adopting the same tactics that were once used against you by the playground bully types who have moved on. It really doesn't help your arguments.

Judges are neither always right nor infallible. They have leeway within the sentencing guidelines and cases are routinely referred for review. We'll have to see how this one works out.

 

[matticus]

, I feel that the judge has shown scant regard to the victim here, and a lot of regard to the well being of the rapists.

Sentencing is about what rehab and/or punishment to give to the offenders. Its not the Judges job to care for the victims.

Let's cut to the chase: you think the victims would feel better if the judge ordered some Goolies to be Cut Off.
By which I mean: YOU would feel better.

Whereas *I* think that no sentence will change the fact that two teenage girls were raped.

 

[BoldonLad]

Low IQ is not a mental health condition.

OK, I agree, so, it should read "Would low IQ, or, some mental health condition....."

 

[BoldonLad]

Sentencing is about what rehab and/or punishment to give to the offenders. Its not the Judges job to care for the victims.

Let's cut to the chase: you think the victims would feel better if the judge ordered some Goolies to be Cut Off.
By which I mean: YOU would feel better.

Whereas *I* think that no sentence will change the fact that two teenage girls were raped.

You would be wrong in that assumption 😊

 

[AuroraSaab]

Judges do have to consider the harm to the victim of the offence.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-myths/#step9

Sentences that do not reflect the seriousness and harm of the crime have a very detrimental effect on the mental health of victims. 'No sentence will change the fact that 2 girls were raped' doesn't mean the girls weren't further harmed by the leniency of these sentences.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think "low IQ" was being used a convenient descriptor rather than referring to the specific learning difficulties and other mental health conditions. And yes it would, because if someone does not understand what they are doing is wrong, it cannot strictly be said that they intentionally did something wrong - and that must be taken into account. Usually people in that position are being coerced or controlled by someone who very much does know what they are doing.


Of course. That's why these kids are being rehabilitated - to improve public safety. Sending them on a custodial so that they can be release as angry adult rapists with a drug problem and no work prospects is not the best outcome.

I think the sentencing remarks give a very good sense that there is an awful lot more here than we are aware of. His job is not to ensure the well being of the rapists but to ensure that they do not reoffend. That's the design of our justice system.

The USA has one built around punishment. It's hardly a poster child for success.

Regardless of level of understanding, if someone is killed, raped or otherwise injured, does the level of understanding make the effect less relevant to the victim?