Should the Judge in the teenagers rape case be struck off ?

He is a disgrace.

www.change.org/p/investigate-judge-nicholas-rowland-and-introduce-a-judicial-accountability-framework-now

Thanks for the link.MissAdventure have signed

It says 62000 have signed so far today, so its going well, hopefully.
The total amount is really high since the petition was posted, but my brain can't handle big numbers.

I think just about everybody except the blooming stupid judge thinks this is a complete and utter disgrace.

152,610 verìfied people agree up until now.

190,899 now !

This case is to be reviewed by The Court of Appeal on 1st July. BBC news.

The Court of Appeal has just given judgment.
Two of the boys given four years in detention, the third has his sentence unchanged.
Front page BBC News.

The judge's ruling was a complete farce, too little focus on the devastating affect the assailants' rape and the filming of their actions had on their victims. Honestly! Judges with piss poor judgement

At the end of the trial, I was left with the feeling/impression that what was of the uppermost importance - was not the trauma of the victims, but the plight of these boys.

The judge praised their behaviour during the trial - did he not realise that them pleading not-guilty to a crime for which there was indisputable evidence, meant that these girls had to be traumatised all over again?

Good behaviour my foot.

Maybe our overcrowded prisons are not the best places to rehabilitate teenage boys - but the Judge could have shown a little less admiration for the offenders and a littl more consideration for their victims.

'Traveller' culture varies, but some of it with its emphasis on machoism for men - and the control of girls and women... well, let's just hope these boys are not from that background otherwise I have my doubts that they will turn their lives around in any meaningful way.

I am glad to see the Court of Appeal's ruling. I could not see that the trial judge paid any regard to sentencing guidelines.
I share with Dickens disquiet about the traveller culture, which I understand to be the background of these boys.
I had some dealings, in my professional life, with some of this group who seemed to encourage the macho culture for boys, and exhibit disregard for the autonomy of girls.
At the very least, incarceration will demonstrate that this view of male/ female relationships is not shared by others.

So glad to see that two boys got custodial sentences. Thank goodness for small mercies for the victims and their families.
Traveller culture does seem to follow a different trajectory to the rest of us when it comes to many things including the law, but that needs to be robustly challenged.

I remember someone on GN who worked with the gypsy community at the time of the death of the policeman dragged along behind a car driven by gypsies commenting that a female member had said to her, 'You don't understand. Your laws are not our laws.'

Chocolatelovinggran

I am glad to see the Court of Appeal's ruling. I could not see that the trial judge paid any regard to sentencing guidelines.
I share with Dickens disquiet about the traveller culture, which I understand to be the background of these boys.
I had some dealings, in my professional life, with some of this group who seemed to encourage the macho culture for boys, and exhibit disregard for the autonomy of girls.
At the very least, incarceration will demonstrate that this view of male/ female relationships is not shared by others.

I think the trial judge acted within the sentencing guidelines, but clearly at their most lenient.

Another issue I had with his ruling - why only a 10-year restraining order? It's now been changed to lifelong.

Not being versed in Law - I do wonder what instructs judges when they make these restraining orders - perhaps it should be up to the victim to decide if she ever wants possible contact with her (or even his) rapist again? I'd like to understand the thinking behind the ruling guidelines on this aspect.

Even more, I'd like to understand why the ruling judge appeared to be so very concerned about the welfare of the boys, although as I said earlier, I'm not sure they are going to go along the straight and narrow path in our understaffed and overcrowded prisons... but did the judge really need to praise the rapists for good behaviour during the proceedings? I doubt it was out of respect for the Court or the Law, and certainly not the girls otherwise they would have pled guilty - more likely coaching from their own representation.

It's been suggested he's "out of touch" - I never used to really believe that mantra about judges, but perhaps people are right.

I don't think sending him to a 'rape-crisis centre' would ever be appropriate (for the women) - but maybe if he had to live within some of those awfully deprived areas of the country, possibly in a concrete tower block or similar, for a few months - that might focus his mind a bit on how life is lived outside of the Home Counties.

Yes it's a custodial sentence but the 231 days they've spent under curfew will be deducted.

And the girls face a lifetime of trauma. And probably shame - because most rape victims do feel shame.

And offender no 3 aka offender "Z" didn't have his sentencing changed because "he was so young".

Never confuse the law with justice.

Very true ferry23
Z was 13 at the time, not too young to laugh and film it was he?
The consequences have to fit the crime and they absolutely needed to have a custodial sentence.Low IQ not withstanding and travellers notwithstanding either.

It was a strange original sentence, years ago there were "approved schools" where school aged law breakers were sent. Borstal schools for those older.

Im not sure of the difference compared with youth custody today, has it changed or is it just a different name.

David49

It was a strange original sentence, years ago there were "approved schools" where school aged law breakers were sent. Borstal schools for those older.

Im not sure of the difference compared with youth custody today, has it changed or is it just a different name.

Without looking it up, I think Borstals were disbanded mainly because the re-offending rates were so high, among other reasons probably.

As society evolved, the focus became more 'welfare' orientated rather than just punitive - which makes sense given the background of some young offenders.

But, therein lies a problem, in my opinion - which might not correspond with research, if there has been any such research; if young offenders are returned to their home environment without any major changes to the way it functions, then I believe that community-based initiatives will largely fail - given the state of our over-burdened Social Services.

My experience of the youth justice service for boys living in chaotic, violent, unstable family homes with substance misuse as a feature was not positive. Services seem less coordinated than in the Blair years, where guidance in Working Together was strong on the various agencies involved with these complex families working in unison rather than undermining or ignoring central agency plans.

I strongly believe the original judge should be held accountable for such leniency towards the culprits and such a lack of consideration for the victims.
At the very least he should be suspended pending an investigation into his ability to make a ruling on cases like this.

I don’t think it’s just this judge that’s the problem. Yes, his decision has been reversed on Appeal. Yes it’s an improvement that the two r@pists were sentenced to 4 years detention. However, did you know that the starting point for production of indecent images of children is 6 years and the boys were NOT sentenced for that even though they admitted it? This case demonstrates clearly how males (boys/men) are rarely given appropriate punishment for their violence towards women & girls.

A former New Scotland Yard Behavioural Analyst, who has a page on Facebook ("Crime Analyst") has been doing some digging into the background of the boys - and the judge's sentencing record.

It appears one of the boys has a history of threatening and intimidating behaviour towards girls. It was reported by the girls, but no action taken. And no record of that behaviour was available in the Court hearing.

Another boy killed a swan with a catapult. He also damaged property with it.

The judge in question has apparently a history of giving out lenient sentences, especially towards young males.

This is, allegedly, what she and her team have unearthed.

They pleaded not guilty so the victims were cross examined. I’m relieved the appeal court made different decisions. We know nothing about the original Judges history in this kind of case. I’d say training not sacking unless he has a history of misogyny

Just as an antidote to the growing misogyny in the media and online - I found this short reel of young men from, probably, a variety of ethnic backgrounds, discussing the issue of women having less children.

They may not be the most articulate, and their language is very 'street' - but I cannot fault their thinking and their conclusions, and the apparent 'humanity' of the final orator.

It's well worth a watch, they are probably late teens, early twenties.

www.facebook.com/reel/2067556127473208