The non-custodial Youth Rehabilitation Orders handed down by Judge Nicholas Rowland at Southampton Crown Court on 21st May 2026 on 3 teenage boys (aged 14 and 13 at the date of their crimes) for the gang rape of two lone girls aged 14 and 15 in Fordingbridge, Hampshire in 2024 and 2025 has triggered a major public outcry, generating public intervention by the Prime Minister and a decision by Attorney General Lord Hermer KC to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Scheme set out in s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Attorney general had 'no doubt' on reviewing teen boys' rape sentences). The hearing is listed on 16th June. To discuss the very difficult sentencing issues generated by the case and the tension it reveals between diversion from the criminal justice system and rehabilitation of child/young offenders on the one hand and the needs of punishment, deterrence and public safety on the other, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined once again by Sarah Vine KC, a barrister with extensive experience of defending adults and children charged with rape and other serious sexual offences. Bearing in mind the appalling conditions in and disastrous outcomes from detention in Young Offender Institutes such as Feltham (as revealed in the 2025 HM Inspectorate Report) as well as the clear priority set out in the Sentencing Council’s guidance on Sentencing Children and Young People that the focus on sentencing a child should be on rehabilitation “where possible” (https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/sentencing-children-and-young-people/) is it possible to argue that Judge Rowland’s sentences are radically out of line with sentencing principles to the extent that they represent a “gross error” on the basis they “fall outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate” (Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41) ? And do the interventions by Keir Starmer and Richard Hermer show that, despite their human rights backgrounds, they respond as typical politicians in the face of a populist demand to send more people, including children, to prison and for longer. -- Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future. What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system? Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays. Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights. Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law. Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades. Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape. If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
続きを読む
一部表示
37 分