R v J, N and E – Case No: 44SC0053025 (T20257005) (Southampton Crown Court)
The sentencing remarks in a recent Southampton Crown Court case concerning the sentencing of children convicted of rape is now available. It sets out the court's reasoning in detail and provides useful guidance on the principles relevant to sentencing children convicted of serious sexual offences.
Details
Offences
Three children were sentenced by Judge Rowland at Southampton Crown Court for 17 sexual offences committed against two girls, aged 14 and 15. None of the defendants received an immediate custodial sentence, although two of the defendants had already been held on remand for a period of between 17-18 months prior to sentencing.
Sentencing
The remarks are notable for the structured approach taken by the judge in the section commencing “My Task” (page 9), in which Judge Rowland worked methodically through the applicable sentencing guidelines, beginning with the overarching principles of the youth justice system. The judge identified and applied three applicable guidelines: (i) Sentencing Children and Young People; (ii) Sexual Offences – Sentencing Children and Young People; and (iii) Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorder and Neurological Impairments.
Key quotes from the sentencing remarks include:
“I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, understand the effects of their behaviour, on the two girls and their families, and promote the boy’s reintegration into society”
“I must consider the respective ages of the children at the time when these offences were committed. As was made clear in that decision, it is not just the chronological age I am concerned with, but emotional and developmental age.”
“I have come to the firm conclusion that peer pressure played a large part in what went on. That is an important aspect when dealing with children and is specifically referred to in the guidelines for obvious reasons.”
“I have come to the conclusion offences of which J and N were convicted crossed the custody threshold, however in light of the guidelines relating to children I am not bound to impose immediate custody.”
J and N each received a Youth Rehabilitation Order for 3 years with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance for 180 days. E received a Youth Rehabilitation Order for 18 months.