By an anonymous criminal barrister
The recent Fordingbridge youth rape case has brought the issue of judicial scrutiny once again to the public’s attention.
Usually when sentencing exercises occur in the crown court (where the most serious sentences take place), the audience is minimal. Of course, it will always include the parties – the judge, court staff, dock officers, prosecution and defence counsel and the defendant themselves. It may include individuals in the public gallery – more often than not, those who have attended to support the defendant. It is rarer that it will include the victim or supporters of the victim. And it is rarer still that it includes members of the media or interested third parties.
Therefore, most sentences are handed down under the radar. If they are reported on, it is usually by a local outlet, detailing the basic facts of the sentence, rather than scrutinising or commenting on the sentencing.
There has been a push towards greater transparency in the criminal courts such as televised sentencing hearings, however this has only been exercised sparingly and in very high-profile cases. In fact, permission can only be granted to film sentences delivered by the most senior judges, so the Fordingbridge case would not have been eligible for this measure.
The Attorney-General has the power to refer sentences they consider to be unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal and victims and members of the public can refer cases for the Attorney-General to consider. However, only a very small proportion of sentences are likely to be scrutinised in this way.
In March 2026, the Solicitor General stated that, since their appointment in September 2025, they received requests to review sentences on 815 offenders and in the last six months only 30 offenders have had their sentences increased. A conservative estimate of sentences handed down in the Crown Court over a six-month period is 40,000. Therefore, there were requests for sentencing reviews in only 2% of cases and an increase in sentencing in only 0.075% of cases It is also not clear how many of the requests were actually taken forward by the Attorney General.
This raises the question of whether there is sufficient scrutiny of sentencing exercises that are occurring in the most serious cases across the country. Many of those will be in matters of public interest and safety and will affect women and girls, in particular, including offences of child abuse, sexual assault, rape and domestic violence.
There was much hand wringing from the legal profession when the sentencing judge, HHJ Nicholas Rowland in the Fordingbridge case faced extensive public criticism for the sentence that he passed. Ultimately, judges exercise a public function, with sentencing decisions that affect issues at the very core of public safety. This responsibility must have robust oversight and scrutiny. The judiciary and their decision-making are answerable to the public. This is why we have public sentencing hearings where sentences must be explained before being passed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision, whilst recognising that this was not an easy sentencing exercise, was unequivocal that HHJ Rowland got it wrong in a number of fundamental aspects. The phrases ‘wrong’ or ‘erred’ in relation to aspects of the sentence passed and the judge’s reasoning appears nine times in the 52-page judgment. It includes errors in the categorisation of both the culpability and harm assessment of the offending, as well as, a failure to recognise some of the most serious aspects of this case, such as that X and Y committed multiple acts of rape against two different victims across two different days. There was also a failure to make a finding of severe psychologic harm caused to the victims, evidenced in the victim’s personal statement which spoke of “enduring distress and despair”, as well as the harmed persons reports. The judge was criticised for rejecting that evidence in favour of his own impressions of the two victims at trial.
This case was one of the rare examples to be subject to scrutiny and ultimately, the sentence was increased to better reflect the profound harm caused to the victims in this case, balanced against the young age and personal circumstances of the two boys. Nonetheless, in getting it so wrong in the first place, HHJ Rowland has caused further and entirely unnecessary anguish to the victims involved and uncertainty for the young people being sentenced.
There are unlikely to be any consequences for the sentencing judge, HHJ Rowland, who is able to sentence a serious sexual case involving youths tomorrow, with no sanction or further training required. There are likely to be many hundreds more cases like this, quietly taking place in crown courts across the country, where unjust sentences are being passed. At the same time, the government proposes a reduction in jury powers, handing even more power to judges to not only decide on sentencing but also on guilt or innocence. This should be of serious concern to us all.
Published 13th July 2026.