A judge was wrong to spare two boys a non-custodial sentence over the rape of two girls, the Court of Appeal has ruled. As well as overturning two sentences in the so-called Fordingbridge Three case for being 'unduly lenient' and imposing four years' detention, the lady chief justice also rebuked the Crown Prosecution Service for fuelling misinformed publicity.
Judge Nicholas Rowland’s decision to give three boys youth rehabilitation orders following a trial at Southampton Crown Court attracted public and political anger – and prompted attorney general Lord Hermer (Richard Hermer KC) to refer the case to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Handing down judgment yesterday in X, Y and Z, lady chief justice Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill said Rowland 'carried out with care a difficult and complex sentencing exercise' - but had imposed 'unduly lenient' sentences on X and Y. The lady chief justice said Rowland had 'materially undervalued' the seriousness of X and Y's offending. His consideration of whether the two girls suffered severe psychological harm was wrong. The appeal court said Z's sentence was 'appropriate'.
In an unusual move, the lady chief justice ended the judgment by commenting on the publicity surrounding the case.
She said: ‘The independence of the judiciary, and the security of individual judges, requires that parliament refrains from criticising individual judges.’
Carr noted ‘a good deal of inaccurate reporting, which fuelled misinformed political and other public commentary’ before the judge’s sentencing remarks were published. She singled out a Crown Prosecution Service press release as the ‘single most egregious example’, which contained ‘inaccurate’ statements that were not immediately corrected.
A CPS spokesperson said: ‘Following the trial, the CPS issued a press release which reflected the prosecution case at trial, but did not accurately reflect the judge's findings in relation to the offending. We later amended the release to correct this and regret the error. It is essential that our public communications accurately reflect court findings. We have reviewed the circumstances of this case and we will identify lessons for the future.’
