From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30 May 2026 at 13:14:48 BST, "GB" <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

I share your confusion. I can see that it almost always best to avoid incarcerating children, as it is disproportionately harmful to them in a way that is unlikely to make them a better person.

I can also see that it is unacceptable to victims and their relatives for deliberate, planned rape (and I would also say GBH with intent) not to be punished with a long period of incarceration. Bearing in mind that even a few years is very long for a child.

I don't know how much flexibility the guidelines allowed the judge.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

No, I don't think anyone can explain unless they have access to the
judge's sentencing remarks. Even a top criminal KC who was invited onto
the news bulletin to give an opinion was unwilling to say that the judge
got it wrong, and merely explained that there is generally a reluctance
to imprison children and to set them on a life of crime, and that the
Court of Appeal would no doubt consider whether the judge had got it
wrong. Disappointing, when you are a journalist keen to get a scoop.

Here's another case, this time from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/29/teenage-boys-rape-sentencing-youth-courts

A perfect opportunity, therefore, for politicians to express their shock
and indignation at the appalling betrayal of victims. A good way to
garner votes and get ahead of the other political parties. Good old
Jess, maybe putting her hat in the ring for the forthcoming leadership contest:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/30/sexual-abuse-victims-children-jess-phillips-sentencing-guidelines

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

I raised this here a week ago (see "More sentencing issues"), but it
didn't get much response. At the time it was just a local issue, but it
has taken off nationally. It will be reviewed and if the sentence was
correct (in terms of the sentencing guidelines), then if there is enough interest I assume the guidelines will be looked at.

What has interested me is the term "criminalising", as the judge
reportedly said that he "wished to avoid criminalising these children".
As they were found guilty of rape, then they are surely already
criminals in the eyes of the law. So are there different degrees of criminalising, whereby a criminal found guilty of one offence, could -
for some reason perhaps due to sentencing - become a worse criminal?

And, perhaps to be controversial, should any consideration be given to lowering the legal age of being a "child" in the eyes of the law? There
is quite a variation in different countries: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility#By_country>

Also see this intriguingly named "provocation paper": <https://medium.com/reframing-childhood-past-and-present/age-of-criminal-responsibility-1e7714db9c1c>
--
Jeff

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2026-05-30, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

The Attorney General will almost certainly have reviewed the
documentation and so will be aware of what they were found to
have done, the victim impact statements, the sentencing remarks,
etc. The Sentencing Guidelines are only guidelines, after all,
there's a fair amount of leeway for judges to make subjective
decisions.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 01:14 PM, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

At first glance, it would appear that only a minority believe that
anything non-custodial is in any way an adequate response to a rape conviction. That's the answer, I'd say.

Of course, there are so many questions unanswered.

Your argument, though, taken literally, would prevent any and all
lenient sentences from being referred to another judicial venue for consideration of an "uprating".

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 15:19, The Todal wrote:

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no
sense to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

No, I don't think anyone can explain unless they have access to the
judge's sentencing remarks. Even a top criminal KC who was invited onto
the news bulletin to give an opinion was unwilling to say that the judge
got it wrong, and merely explained that there is generally a reluctance
to imprison children and to set them on a life of crime, and that the
Court of Appeal would no doubt consider whether the judge had got it
wrong. Disappointing, when you are a journalist keen to get a scoop.

"I was in no doubt that it was a sentence that I felt had to be referred
to the Court of Appeal," Lord Hermer told BBC Radio 4's Political
Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast.

That is not quite saying that he's sure the judge got it wrong, but it's close.

Here's another case, this time from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/29/teenage-boys-rape- sentencing-youth-courts

A perfect opportunity, therefore, for politicians to express their shock
and indignation at the appalling betrayal of victims. A good way to
garner votes and get ahead of the other political parties. Good old
Jess, maybe putting her hat in the ring for the forthcoming leadership contest:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/30/sexual-abuse-victims- children-jess-phillips-sentencing-guidelines

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 30 May 2026 at 13:14:48 BST, "GB" <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

I share your confusion. I can see that it almost always best to avoid incarcerating children, as it is disproportionately harmful to them in a way that is unlikely to make them a better person.

Some people also say that women should never be imprisoned. Why not say
that nobody should? And wouldn't it be a good idea that everyone have
the opportunity to be "rehabilitated", another consideration raised in
these cases. (Apart from the realisation that the only significant "rehabilitation" possible for sex crimes is sexual opportunity.)
--
Max Demian

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 5/30/26 20:58, GB wrote:

On 30/05/2026 15:19, The Todal wrote:

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no
sense to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

No, I don't think anyone can explain unless they have access to the
judge's sentencing remarks. Even a top criminal KC who was invited
onto the news bulletin to give an opinion was unwilling to say that
the judge got it wrong, and merely explained that there is generally a
reluctance to imprison children and to set them on a life of crime,
and that the Court of Appeal would no doubt consider whether the judge
had got it wrong. Disappointing, when you are a journalist keen to get
a scoop.

"I was in no doubt that it was a sentence that I felt had to be referred
to the Court of Appeal," Lord Hermer told BBC Radio 4's Political
Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast.

That is not quite saying that he's sure the judge got it wrong, but it's close.

I don't think so.

Sometimes when you are in an administrative position you recognise that
people have a special concern over an issue or decision and hence you
allocate more time to investigate and consider possible actions. A
decision to review does not necessarily indicate a belief that the
original decision was wrong, it may just indicate a recognition that it
was a tricky or important decision.







--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of them
have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes no sense
to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

The courts are very reluctant to imprison juveniles, and I'm sure the
Judge bore that in mind when sentencing. However, he also commented on
their behaviour in court, saying how impressed he was. I don't think
that should have swayed his sentencing. In my opinion they should have received a custodial sentence, as it seems little consideration has been
given to the two young girls who actually suffered the ordeal of rape.

At least it's going to the CofA, where 3 Judges will re-examine the case.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 31/05/2026 11:41, Pancho wrote:

On 5/30/26 20:58, GB wrote:

On 30/05/2026 15:19, The Todal wrote:

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape
were not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a
judge listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines,
and presumably sentenced accordingly.

Yet, somehow, virtually everyone in the country, including now the
Attorney General, thinks the judge was completely wrong. None of
them have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, so this makes
no sense to me.

So, is the fault with the judge or with the sentencing guidelines?

Can anyone explain, please?

No, I don't think anyone can explain unless they have access to the
judge's sentencing remarks. Even a top criminal KC who was invited
onto the news bulletin to give an opinion was unwilling to say that
the judge got it wrong, and merely explained that there is generally
a reluctance to imprison children and to set them on a life of crime,
and that the Court of Appeal would no doubt consider whether the
judge had got it wrong. Disappointing, when you are a journalist keen
to get a scoop.

"I was in no doubt that it was a sentence that I felt had to be
referred to the Court of Appeal," Lord Hermer told BBC Radio 4's
Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast.

That is not quite saying that he's sure the judge got it wrong, but
it's close.

I don't think so.

Sometimes when you are in an administrative position you recognise that people have a special concern over an issue or decision and hence you allocate more time to investigate and consider possible actions. A
decision to review does not necessarily indicate a belief that the
original decision was wrong, it may just indicate a recognition that it
was a tricky or important decision.

The referral for review of the sentence should only be made where:
rCLrCa it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriaterCY (Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, Lord Lane CJ).

The AG has added to that "I was in no doubt".













--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"GB" <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote in message news:10vffhm$12vbm$1@dont-email.me...

"I was in no doubt that it was a sentence that I felt had to be referred to the Court of Appeal," Lord Hermer told BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast.

That is not quite saying that he's sure the judge got it wrong, but it's close.

Or possibly its simply recognition of the public disquiet that the sentence
has apparently caused.

Sending it to Appeal allows all the arguments and issues to be more
fully aired and discussed; in the hope of dampening some of that
disquiet.


bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Sun, 31 May 2026 13:23:15 +0100, John wrote:

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The courts are very reluctant to imprison juveniles, and I'm sure the
Judge bore that in mind when sentencing. However, he also commented on
their behaviour in court, saying how impressed he was. I don't think
that should have swayed his sentencing.

I don't know. I can't stand rude rapists.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 01/06/2026 10:35, Jethro wrote:

On Sun, 31 May 2026 13:23:15 +0100, John wrote:

On 30/05/2026 13:14, GB wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The courts are very reluctant to imprison juveniles, and I'm sure the
Judge bore that in mind when sentencing. However, he also commented on
their behaviour in court, saying how impressed he was. I don't think
that should have swayed his sentencing.

I don't know. I can't stand rude rapists.

The young people of today need up to date advice about how to impress a prospective employer at an interview. Or a judge at sentencing.

I think you'd all enjoy this episode of The Daily Show, especially from
5 minutes 50 seconds onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xam8tWyHRo&t=7s

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Is it just me, or is there more than a suggestion that there was the
option for a defence of diminished responsibility ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d2d55kvy1o


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Is it just me, or is there more than a suggestion that there was the
option for a defence of diminished responsibility ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d2d55kvy1o

Diminished responsibility is a difficult defence to make. It generally
requires a diagnosable (even if undiagnosed at the time of the offence) abnormality of mind which severely affects the defendant's judgement. Simply being incredibly stupid is not, of itself, an abnormality of mind.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 5 Jun 2026 at 13:12:03 BST, "Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Is it just me, or is there more than a suggestion that there was the
option for a defence of diminished responsibility ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d2d55kvy1o

Rather a Pyrrhic defence as it would quite likely to result in the defendant spending the rest of their life in secure mental illness accommodation.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather misogynist I suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my impression.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 06/06/2026 00:15, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote: >>

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

That's not how the appeals process is supposed to work, but you may turn
out to be correct. I hope the COA will only change the original sentence
if they determine that it was clearly wrong.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather misogynist I suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my impression.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 06/06/2026 00:15, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote: >>

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

Why would the appeal judges take any notice of 'popular sentiment'? The
appeal has to be based on facts alone..... I was one of the 'popular sentiment' group... until I read the report.
IMO, 'public sentiment' has been formed without full knowledge of the case. Having read all the the sentencing remarks, I'd be surprised if the
appeal court changes the sentences. But then I'm not an expert in such matters....just my 2p.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather misogynist I suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my impression.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 06/06/2026 11:59, JNugent wrote:

On 06/06/2026 12:15 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid>
wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-
No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is
clear is
that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular
sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather
misogynist I
suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my
impression.

I don't know about "misogynist" as such*, but some of the remarks seemed
a little judgmental.

[* I have never really known what the word means. It was explained at
school (to a class) that a misogynist was a man who hated women. That
made it sound like a very rare condition. But today, it seems to have evolved to mean any male whose actions or speech do not sort with the beliefs of the chatterati, female branch.]

There is currently a campaign to criminalise hate crimes against women.
So that the crime would attract a heavier punishment for being a "hate"
crime, in the same way as a crime motivated by racism.

But how do you judge whether a punch or a slap or even a sexual assault
is motivated by hatred of women, misogyny? Donald Trump grabs 'em by the pussy, but does he "hate" women? Or merely disrespect them, which is not
the same thing?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 6 Jun 2026 at 15:56:41 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 06/06/2026 11:59, JNugent wrote:

On 06/06/2026 12:15 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid>
wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were >>>>> not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-
No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is
clear is
that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular
sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather
misogynist I
suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my
impression.

I don't know about "misogynist" as such*, but some of the remarks seemed
a little judgmental.

[* I have never really known what the word means. It was explained at
school (to a class) that a misogynist was a man who hated women. That
made it sound like a very rare condition. But today, it seems to have
evolved to mean any male whose actions or speech do not sort with the
beliefs of the chatterati, female branch.]

There is currently a campaign to criminalise hate crimes against women.
So that the crime would attract a heavier punishment for being a "hate" crime, in the same way as a crime motivated by racism.

But how do you judge whether a punch or a slap or even a sexual assault
is motivated by hatred of women, misogyny? Donald Trump grabs 'em by the pussy, but does he "hate" women? Or merely disrespect them, which is not
the same thing?

We are all speaking American of course, and I am regularly asked by purveyors of undistinguished goods (and even more boring streaming services) whether I "love" a particular offerings; I really don't. Again, "hate crime" is journalistic hyperbole and I really don't think I have any problem with counting disrespecting half the human race and acting on that prejudice in any material way (or encouraging other to) as a "hate crime".
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 06/06/2026 03:56 PM, The Todal wrote:

On 06/06/2026 11:59, JNugent wrote:

On 06/06/2026 12:15 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB
<NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were >>>>> not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-
No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is
clear is
that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular
sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather
misogynist I
suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my
impression.

I don't know about "misogynist" as such*, but some of the remarks
seemed a little judgmental.

[* I have never really known what the word means. It was explained at
school (to a class) that a misogynist was a man who hated women. That
made it sound like a very rare condition. But today, it seems to have
evolved to mean any male whose actions or speech do not sort with the
beliefs of the chatterati, female branch.]

There is currently a campaign to criminalise hate crimes against women.
So that the crime would attract a heavier punishment for being a "hate" crime, in the same way as a crime motivated by racism.

But how do you judge whether a punch or a slap or even a sexual assault
is motivated by hatred of women, misogyny? Donald Trump grabs 'em by the pussy, but does he "hate" women? Or merely disrespect them, which is not
the same thing?

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the >extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the >reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with >one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs" >(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That >is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a
clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion.
The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that "consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do
not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their
general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls,
in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your
mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

To be clear: the offence was made out and the boys were rightly convicted.
"No" always means "no", irrespective of any prior consent. But. Intent
matters. The boys were not lying in wait for an unsuspecting victim. Nor
were they cynically manipulating their victims into faux-consent. They were engaging in activity that was, initially, genuinely mutually consensual.
Their crime was to fail to recognise when it was no longer consensual.

Failing to understand that consent has been withdrawn is not a defence. But
the judge appears to have considered, particularly given their intellectual challenges, that it was a mitigation. And, having taken that into account, along with the sentencing guidelines and case law, concluded that a
custodial sentence was not justified.

It is worth bearing in mind here that the sentencing guidelines make it
clear that the default sentence for child offenders is non-custodial. A custodial sentence can only be imposed if the judge is certain that it is necessary, given the circumstances of the offence. The judge in the case
makes it clear that the threshold for detention would have been crossed were
it not for the mitigating factors. But, with those factors taken into
account, detention would not be justified.

The Court of Appeal may disagree. It may conclude that the mitigation was insufficient to tip the balance. It may consider that the judge failed to properly take account of aggravating factors which would outweigh the mitigation. It may be of the opinion that the judge has misinterpreted the sentencing guidelines, or failed to properly apply case law. All of which
are possible.

The Court of Appeal will have access to information that is not available to us. The pre-sentencing reports, the barristers' arguments in mitigation, the victim statements, etc. So I wouldn't want to predict what its decision will be. I think it could easily go either way. But I do not think there is a
clear and obvious error in the judge's reasoning. It all comes down to how
much weight should be given to different factors and different guidelines.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 7 Jun 2026 at 22:01:14 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the
reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion. The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that "consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls, in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

Well that is where me and the judge part company. On the grounds that firstly one of the boys had no significant mental impairment (just the customary ADHD tag very recently acquired) and secondly even the most dim of boys should be able to grasp that girls don't like being gang raped. I do think this type of attitude to girls is exactly why grooming gangs were regarded as a "problem of child prostitution" until recent decades. But perhaps yours and the judge's view will be a majority view at present.

snip
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 07/06/2026 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the
reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion. The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that "consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls, in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

To be clear: the offence was made out and the boys were rightly convicted. "No" always means "no", irrespective of any prior consent. But. Intent matters. The boys were not lying in wait for an unsuspecting victim. Nor
were they cynically manipulating their victims into faux-consent. They were engaging in activity that was, initially, genuinely mutually consensual. Their crime was to fail to recognise when it was no longer consensual.

Failing to understand that consent has been withdrawn is not a defence. But the judge appears to have considered, particularly given their intellectual challenges, that it was a mitigation. And, having taken that into account, along with the sentencing guidelines and case law, concluded that a
custodial sentence was not justified.

It is worth bearing in mind here that the sentencing guidelines make it
clear that the default sentence for child offenders is non-custodial. A custodial sentence can only be imposed if the judge is certain that it is necessary, given the circumstances of the offence. The judge in the case makes it clear that the threshold for detention would have been crossed were it not for the mitigating factors. But, with those factors taken into account, detention would not be justified.

The Court of Appeal may disagree. It may conclude that the mitigation was insufficient to tip the balance. It may consider that the judge failed to properly take account of aggravating factors which would outweigh the mitigation. It may be of the opinion that the judge has misinterpreted the sentencing guidelines, or failed to properly apply case law. All of which
are possible.

The Court of Appeal will have access to information that is not available to us. The pre-sentencing reports, the barristers' arguments in mitigation, the victim statements, etc. So I wouldn't want to predict what its decision will be. I think it could easily go either way. But I do not think there is a clear and obvious error in the judge's reasoning. It all comes down to how much weight should be given to different factors and different guidelines.

Mark

A good analysis.

The Court of Appeal will only interfere if it decides that the judge's decision was outside the limits of what a judge in that situation is
entitled to decide.

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so. The self-serving indignation of politicians is also irrelevant,
because fortunately our senior judges don't have to placate politicians
to ensure they can be re-elected or can stay in office.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 09:43, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 7 Jun 2026 at 22:01:14 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the >>> reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a
clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial
impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any
suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion. >> The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that
"consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do >> not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their
general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls, >> in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your >> mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would
consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

...and probably have long term partners or have given up that kind of thing.

Well that is where me and the judge part company. On the grounds that firstly one of the boys had no significant mental impairment (just the customary ADHD tag very recently acquired) and secondly even the most dim of boys should be able to grasp that girls don't like being gang raped. I do think this type of attitude to girls is exactly why grooming gangs were regarded as a "problem of
child prostitution" until recent decades. But perhaps yours and the judge's view will be a majority view at present.

I blame the Permissive Society and The Pill (grumble grumble).
--
Max Demian

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 8 Jun 2026 at 11:59:55 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

On 08/06/2026 09:43, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 7 Jun 2026 at 22:01:14 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the >>>> reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a >>> clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial
impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any >>> suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion. >>> The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that
"consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do >>> not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their
general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls, >>> in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your >>> mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would
consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

...and probably have long term partners or have given up that kind of thing.

Well that is where me and the judge part company. On the grounds that firstly
one of the boys had no significant mental impairment (just the customary ADHD
tag very recently acquired) and secondly even the most dim of boys should be >> able to grasp that girls don't like being gang raped. I do think this type of
attitude to girls is exactly why grooming gangs were regarded as a "problem of
child prostitution" until recent decades. But perhaps yours and the judge's >> view will be a majority view at present.

I blame the Permissive Society and The Pill (grumble grumble).

Quite so. Before that girls were supposed to be able to routinely fight for their virtue. Otherwise, what could they expect?
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 10:52, The Todal wrote:

On 07/06/2026 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively
downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for
the
reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at
all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being
prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily"
seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a
clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial
impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any
suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved
coercion.
The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that
"consent is situation specific". This is something that the
perpetrators do
not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their
general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that
girls,
in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with
your
mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would
consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand
consent.

To be clear: the offence was made out and the boys were rightly
convicted.
"No" always means "no", irrespective of any prior consent. But. Intent
matters. The boys were not lying in wait for an unsuspecting victim. Nor
were they cynically manipulating their victims into faux-consent. They
were
engaging in activity that was, initially, genuinely mutually consensual.
Their crime was to fail to recognise when it was no longer consensual.

Failing to understand that consent has been withdrawn is not a
defence. But
the judge appears to have considered, particularly given their
intellectual
challenges, that it was a mitigation. And, having taken that into
account,
along with the sentencing guidelines and case law, concluded that a
custodial sentence was not justified.

It is worth bearing in mind here that the sentencing guidelines make it
clear that the default sentence for child offenders is non-custodial. A
custodial sentence can only be imposed if the judge is certain that it is
necessary, given the circumstances of the offence. The judge in the case
makes it clear that the threshold for detention would have been
crossed were
it not for the mitigating factors. But, with those factors taken into
account, detention would not be justified.

The Court of Appeal may disagree. It may conclude that the mitigation was
insufficient to tip the balance. It may consider that the judge failed to
properly take account of aggravating factors which would outweigh the
mitigation. It may be of the opinion that the judge has misinterpreted
the
sentencing guidelines, or failed to properly apply case law. All of which
are possible.

The Court of Appeal will have access to information that is not
available to
us. The pre-sentencing reports, the barristers' arguments in
mitigation, the
victim statements, etc. So I wouldn't want to predict what its
decision will
be. I think it could easily go either way. But I do not think there is a
clear and obvious error in the judge's reasoning. It all comes down to
how
much weight should be given to different factors and different
guidelines.

Mark

A good analysis.

The Court of Appeal will only interfere if it decides that the judge's decision was outside the limits of what a judge in that situation is entitled to decide.

Under the unduly lenient sentence regime, the criterion is not actually
that but:

"where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying
his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider
appropriaterCY (Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, Lord Lane CJ)"

So, not just being within what the judge is entitled to decide (which it
was), but what is reasonably appropriate in the circumstances (which
most consider it wasn't).

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so. The self-serving indignation of politicians is also irrelevant,
because fortunately our senior judges don't have to placate politicians
to ensure they can be re-elected or can stay in office.

But what is 'reasonable' is to a considerable extent what the public
believes. It's a test for the man on the Clapham omnibus. And it's
what the Court of Appeal has to decide.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:52:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so.

And right so. It's enough that justice has been done. Nobody needs to
actually see it done, do they ?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 12:22, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 8 Jun 2026 at 11:59:55 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

On 08/06/2026 09:43, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 7 Jun 2026 at 22:01:14 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the >>>>> reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children. There's a >>>> clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial >>>> impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there any >>>> suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved coercion.
The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that >>>> "consent is situation specific". This is something that the perpetrators do
not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their >>>> general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that girls,
in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with your >>>> mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would >>>> consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand consent.

...and probably have long term partners or have given up that kind of thing. >>

Well that is where me and the judge part company. On the grounds that firstly
one of the boys had no significant mental impairment (just the customary ADHD
tag very recently acquired) and secondly even the most dim of boys should be
able to grasp that girls don't like being gang raped. I do think this type of
attitude to girls is exactly why grooming gangs were regarded as a "problem of
child prostitution" until recent decades. But perhaps yours and the judge's >>> view will be a majority view at present.

I blame the Permissive Society and The Pill (grumble grumble).

Quite so. Before that girls were supposed to be able to routinely fight for their virtue. Otherwise, what could they expect?

Society protected them.
--
Max Demian

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 12:32, Norman Wells wrote:

On 08/06/2026 10:52, The Todal wrote:

On 07/06/2026 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 6 Jun 2026 11:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively
downplayed the
extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just
for the
reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at
all with
one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being
prosecuted. That
is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too
easily" seduced.

The grooming gangs involve adults taking advantage of children.
There's a
clear power imbalance there, even if the victims are under the initial
impression that they are consenting.

In this case, there are no adults. They're all children. Nor is there
any
suggestion that the prior consensual sexual activity had involved
coercion.
The real nub of the offences, as the judge says in his remarks, is that
"consent is situation specific". This is something that the
perpetrators do
not appear to have understood; something which may be related to their
general lack of intellectual capacity. What it boils down to is that
girls,
in effect, said "I want to shag you if we're on our own, but not with
your
mate watching and videoing us". I think most of us, to be honest, would
consider that a reasonable stance. But we are adults who understand
consent.

To be clear: the offence was made out and the boys were rightly
convicted.
"No" always means "no", irrespective of any prior consent. But. Intent
matters. The boys were not lying in wait for an unsuspecting victim. Nor >>> were they cynically manipulating their victims into faux-consent.
They were
engaging in activity that was, initially, genuinely mutually consensual. >>> Their crime was to fail to recognise when it was no longer consensual.

Failing to understand that consent has been withdrawn is not a
defence. But
the judge appears to have considered, particularly given their
intellectual
challenges, that it was a mitigation. And, having taken that into
account,
along with the sentencing guidelines and case law, concluded that a
custodial sentence was not justified.

It is worth bearing in mind here that the sentencing guidelines make it
clear that the default sentence for child offenders is non-custodial. A
custodial sentence can only be imposed if the judge is certain that
it is
necessary, given the circumstances of the offence. The judge in the case >>> makes it clear that the threshold for detention would have been
crossed were
it not for the mitigating factors. But, with those factors taken into
account, detention would not be justified.

The Court of Appeal may disagree. It may conclude that the mitigation
was
insufficient to tip the balance. It may consider that the judge
failed to
properly take account of aggravating factors which would outweigh the
mitigation. It may be of the opinion that the judge has
misinterpreted the
sentencing guidelines, or failed to properly apply case law. All of
which
are possible.

The Court of Appeal will have access to information that is not
available to
us. The pre-sentencing reports, the barristers' arguments in
mitigation, the
victim statements, etc. So I wouldn't want to predict what its
decision will
be. I think it could easily go either way. But I do not think there is a >>> clear and obvious error in the judge's reasoning. It all comes down
to how
much weight should be given to different factors and different
guidelines.

Mark

A good analysis.

The Court of Appeal will only interfere if it decides that the judge's
decision was outside the limits of what a judge in that situation is
entitled to decide.

Under the unduly lenient sentence regime, the criterion is not actually
that but:

"where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying
his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriaterCY (Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, Lord Lane CJ)"

So, not just being within what the judge is entitled to decide (which it was), but what is reasonably appropriate in the circumstances (which
most consider it wasn't).

My words were a paraphrase.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if "most" of the
public want a more punitive sentence then that must be factored into the
Court of Appeal's decision. Obviously that's not true - it is irrelevant whether "most" have an opinion, and actually the "most" is merely a
handful of politicians and journalists anyway.

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so. The self-serving indignation of politicians is also irrelevant,
because fortunately our senior judges don't have to placate
politicians to ensure they can be re-elected or can stay in office.

But what is 'reasonable' is to a considerable extent what the public believes.-a It's a test for the man on the Clapham omnibus.-a And it's
what the Court of Appeal has to decide.

Absolutely wrong. You're offering a dollop of Norman Law again.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 15:23, Jethro wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:52:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so.

And right so. It's enough that justice has been done. Nobody needs to actually see it done, do they ?

What are you actually suggesting?
Anyone can attend a trial. But few do. And now anyone can read the
judge's sentencing remarks. But few do, and as usual the journalists do
a pisspoor job of informing their readership.

Instead of offering a careful analysis from experienced lawyers, our journalists interview the victims and get some soundbites from them
about how grievously they have been let down. It is what sells newspapers.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 08/06/2026 22:04, The Todal wrote:

On 08/06/2026 12:32, Norman Wells wrote:

On 08/06/2026 10:52, The Todal wrote:

The Court of Appeal will only interfere if it decides that the
judge's decision was outside the limits of what a judge in that
situation is entitled to decide.

Under the unduly lenient sentence regime, the criterion is not
actually that but:

"where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge,
applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably
consider appropriaterCY (Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989
[1990] 1 WLR 41, Lord Lane CJ)"

So, not just being within what the judge is entitled to decide (which
it was), but what is reasonably appropriate in the circumstances
(which most consider it wasn't).

My words were a paraphrase.

Indeed. I was just pointing out its imprecision and why it was misleading.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if "most" of the
public want a more punitive sentence then that must be factored into the Court of Appeal's decision. Obviously that's not true - it is irrelevant whether "most" have an opinion, and actually the "most" is merely a
handful of politicians and journalists anyway.

Wherever 'reasonableness' comes into the equation under the law, the
'man on the Clapham omnibus' comes into it too.

Judges have to try to put themselves in the position of that
hypothetical honest, decent, ordinary man and decide whether he would
consider it reasonable. He is the arbiter.

The fury of the public is irrelevant to the CA's decision and rightly
so. The self-serving indignation of politicians is also irrelevant,
because fortunately our senior judges don't have to placate
politicians to ensure they can be re-elected or can stay in office.

But what is 'reasonable' is to a considerable extent what the public
believes.-a It's a test for the man on the Clapham omnibus.-a And it's
what the Court of Appeal has to decide.

Absolutely wrong. You're offering a dollop of Norman Law again.

I think not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n8ps3bF81imU1@mid.individual.net...

But what is 'reasonable' is to a considerable extent what the public
believes. It's a test for the man on the Clapham omnibus. And it's what the >>> Court of Appeal has to decide.

Absolutely wrong. You're offering a dollop of Norman Law again.

I think not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

Have you actually travelled on a Clapham omnibus recently ?

Such as that pictured on your link ?

I think not, somehow.

At a guess the 40 or so schoolchildren, sorry students, along with
the cowering OAP's who regularly travel on the no 88, were replaced
by Mondeo Man at some time in the late 90's. And doubtless he too
has been replaced in the meantime


bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 6 Jun 2026 at 10:13:01 BST, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:

On 06/06/2026 00:15, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is >> that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

Why would the appeal judges take any notice of 'popular sentiment'? The appeal has to be based on facts alone..... I was one of the 'popular sentiment' group... until I read the report.
IMO, 'public sentiment' has been formed without full knowledge of the case. Having read all the the sentencing remarks, I'd be surprised if the
appeal court changes the sentences. But then I'm not an expert in such matters....just my 2p.

I agree with you that the CoA should not change the sentence because only the trial judge was in a position to weigh the evidence in front of him.

However, my personal impression was that he probably massively downplayed the extent of the girls' being coerced and effectively kidnapped just for the reason he agreed he shouldn't have done - that they agreed to sex at all with one of the boys. This is just the attitude that led to "rape gangs"
(Pakistani or otherwise, most are still otherwise) not being prosecuted. That is, the lack of credibility of vulnerable girls who were "too easily" seduced.

So I think his sentencing was probably wrong, but not in a way that the CoA is really in a position to correct. It is more my suspicion that it was wrong
than any objective evidence.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 22:41:19 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 13:12:03 BST, "Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

Is it just me, or is there more than a suggestion that there was the
option for a defence of diminished responsibility ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d2d55kvy1o

Rather a Pyrrhic defence as it would quite likely to result in the
defendant spending the rest of their life in secure mental illness accommodation.

I think you confuse me with someone who gives a flying fuck about #bekind
to these dangerous criminals. I'm reserving my sympathy for their future victims.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 6 Jun 2026 at 09:29:44 BST, "GB" <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

On 06/06/2026 00:15, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is >> that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

That's not how the appeals process is supposed to work, but you may turn
out to be correct. I hope the COA will only change the original sentence
if they determine that it was clearly wrong.

I do of course agree with both your statements.

<font color="#5856d6">snip</font>

--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 06/06/2026 12:15 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 5 Jun 2026 at 22:56:32 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:14:48 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote: >>

I was quite surprised to hear that three lads who committed rape were
not sentenced to custodial sentences. On the other hand, a judge
listened to the evidence, applied the sentencing guidelines, and
presumably sentenced accordingly.

The sentencing remarks are now online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf

Mark

There is a lot that could be said about them, but one thing that is clear is that it was open to him to apply a custodial sentence and popular sentiment is
rather likely to lead to one being given on appeal.

If one was to suggest that his attitude to the girls was rather misogynist I suppose it would be unpopular around here; but that was certainly my impression.

I don't know about "misogynist" as such*, but some of the remarks seemed
a little judgmental.

[* I have never really known what the word means. It was explained at
school (to a class) that a misogynist was a man who hated women. That
made it sound like a very rare condition. But today, it seems to have
evolved to mean any male whose actions or speech do not sort with the
beliefs of the chatterati, female branch.]

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2