Date: 21st July 2026
To the Lady Chief Justice,
We write in response to your judgment published on the 17th July 2026 Re: The King vs X,Y,Z [2026] EWCA Crim 913 concerning the “administration of justice” in the Fordingbridge rape case where three boys convicted of 17 sexual offences against two girls were originally given non-custodial sentences. Your judgment focused on the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) to correct inaccuracies in the media reporting of the original sentencing of this case and what you describe as the resulting misplaced “personal vilification” of the judge evidenced by a petition for a formal investigation into his conduct.
We write as an organisation that expressed concerns about the original sentencing decision and continues to raise concerns regarding judicial accountability. We write to respectfully raise a number of points in response to your judgment, namely:
- You found Judge Rowland’s sentence was unduly lenient regardless of the inaccuracies now focused on.
- The public outcry was not due to the inaccuracies, it was because of the judge’s public decision and his comments which caused immeasurable harm to Jazmine and victim two.
- Had the media reporting of the case reflected the judge’s sentencing remarks accurately, we would have continued to condemn his sentencing decision as biased.
- The petition calling for Judge Rowland’s resignation does not rely upon the alleged inaccuracies as a reason for calling for his resignation.
- It is wrong to automatically equate calls for judicial accountability with personal threats to judges safety.
- We note that barristers and judges have reported feeling unsafe when raising concerns about bullying by members of the judiciary. You have not implemented an effective system that protects those who report such conduct or ensures accountability for judicial office holders.
- This case raises concerns regarding the training and guidance provided to judges dealing with sexual offences in England and Wales that we believe warrant the attention of the senior judiciary.
We substantiate these points below.
Public concerns regarding the lack of custodial sentences for these three boys cannot be attributed to the inaccurate reporting alone. They relate to a number of factors that were acknowledged as relevant to the sentence in the final Court of Appeal judgment, which summarised it as follows: “In each incident, the complainant was subjected to multiple rapes, in the presence of others who were, at various times, calling out comments, filming, exposing themselves and masturbating close to the girl in question” [123]. As also acknowledged in the judgment, the girls were vulnerable, sustained psychological harm and further (and of particular relevance to public safety) these were repeated offences against two victims on two separate occasions.
Once the sentencing remarks were publicly available, we were even further dismayed and frankly shocked at the language used by the judge. Had a knife never been mentioned in the media reporting, our concerns regarding the sentence and sentencing remarks would remain. The judge minimised the seventeen offences which a jury had found the boys were guilty of perpetrating. He chose not to refer to the offences as “rape” when addressing the offenders, minimised the severity of the offences and their impact on the girls by concluding they did not reach the threshold of “severe psychological harm” and also repeated that the victims consented to some initial sexual activity with one of the offenders, suggesting this impacted culpability and the interpretation of the jury’s verdict which is frankly wrong in law. We believe this is evidence of bias and a lack of understanding regarding victim-blaming and sexual offences.
It is critical that the public’s concern regarding judicial accountability following this case must not be dismissed as merely evidence of the threat to judicial independence and safety. In our view, calls for stronger accountability reflect genuine public concern about the safeguards surrounding judicial power and immunity, concerns that arguably stem from weaknesses in existing accountability mechanisms. In our recent report, which considered victim-blaming and bias in family courts, we highlight a lack of confidence in the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s (JCIO) ability to address bias on the part of judges, especially when “bias in a judge’s decision making” is automatically ruled out of scope for JCIO investigations. Concerns have also been expressed with regards to the JCIO’s capacity to address judicial bullying and harassment.
We believe that our report and this case form part of a growing body of evidence supporting reform and overhaul of the JCIO, including on time limits, scope of complaints and independence in investigations. Effective and independent oversight is critical to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. We are concerned that the JCIO is not for purpose and repeatedly hear that service users of the court and professionals have no confidence in it.
We utterly condemn any abuse or threatened harm to judges. Our Founder, Dr Charlotte Proudman, has faced death threats in the course of her work and knows only too well the impact these can have on the wellbeing of an individual and their family. She has also been subjected to misogynistic online abuse from other barristers and legal professionals, which was raised as a matter of concern in Baroness Harman’s independent review of the bar. Dr Proudman was subject to posts by His Honour Judge Daniel Sawyer (then a Recorder) who used an anonymous social media account to make comments designed to attack and ridicule her professionalism, qualifications and experience and encouraged members of the public to send offensive messages, as well as complain about her to the Bar Standards Board. Indeed, he made a malicious complaint to the BSB which was dismissed. This amounts to harassment and bullying of a female barrister specialising in protecting victims from abuse. We note that HHJ Daniel Sawyer’s comments reflected views on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system that many would regard as outdated and inconsistent with a modern understanding of sexual violence. His conduct was never investigated by the JCIO. Judicial safety is critical but so too is the safety of those who rely and work alongside judges who are a profession afforded extensive immunity and protection from investigation.
This case also raises concerns regarding the training and guidance provided to judges which must not be ignored. In our view, the original sentencing remarks in this case represent a failure to understand sexual offending and how to avoid victim-blaming. We believe they warrant an urgent review of the effectiveness of judicial training and in particular how it can prevent the trivialising of adolescent rape, sexual abuse and safeguarding concerns, an issue previously identified and addressed by the Crown Prosecution in their work on Operation Soteria. We implore the Judicial College to review the learning and training implications of this unduly lenient sentence and accompanying remarks made by HHJ Rowland.
We welcome that the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme enabled the correction of Judge Rowland’s sentencing decision. This demonstrates that institutional safeguards can work to uphold justice. However, this scheme did not emerge through the will of the judiciary. It emerged following public concern about the sentences imposed on the men convicted of raping Jill Saward in the Ealing Vicarage case in 1986. The unduly lenient sentencing scheme is widely welcomed as supporting the fair administration of justice regarding victims. We argue that whilst intolerance and abuse of course must be condemned and not tolerated, the public concern that this case evoked also cannot be ignored. Furthermore, issues raised by the Jill Saward case, in particular the minimisation of psychological harm, are echoed in the recent remarks by Judge Rowland over thirty years later. We believe this warrants swift action to improve the training, guidance, scrutiny and accountability of judges in their response to sexual offences.
In summary, we do not dispute the criticisms of inaccurate reporting or a lack of timely corrections. However, we are concerned by the disproportionate focus placed on these inaccuracies and question the purpose they have served. By diverting attention to them, the focus shifted away from the impact of the sentencing remarks on the victims. Jazmine and her family found it deeply distressing that, during the Court of Appeal hearing, significant attention was given by the panel of learned judges and counsel to language that they perceived as expressing empathy for, and offering explanations on behalf of, the sentencing judge, rather than centring the experiences and harm suffered by the victims.
We respectfully urge that the wider issues raised by this case are not subsumed within concerns about judicial security and independence alone.
Yours sincerely,
Right to Equality
Jazmine (C1) and her parents, Right to Equality Ambassadors and founders of the Stronger than Silence Foundation.