The Court of Appeal Ruled.

Here Is What They Did Not Get Punished For.

300,000 of you signed this petition.

You deserve the full picture.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the original sentences handed to X and Y were unduly lenient. They have been sentenced to four years detention.

The nation celebrated.

We need to tell you what that actually means.

What the sentences actually mean:

1. They will serve less than two years. The four year sentences run concurrently — meaning all counts of rape are served at the same time, not consecutively.

2. Boy Y was convicted of six rapes. Boy X of four rapes. They will not serve a day extra for each additional victim or each additional attack.

3. They received zero punishment for filming and uploading the rapes. The judgment explicitly confirms there was no separate penalty for the production and uploading of indecent images of children. They filmed it. They shared it. They were not punished for it.

What Judge Rowland got wrong — confirmed by the Court of Appeal:

1. He rejected the victim impact statements. Both girls submitted full personal statements describing enduring distress and despair. C1 was rapidly spiralling into emotional and physical distress. She rarely leaves the house. She was too scared to travel to school by bus in case she encountered the boys. C2 had 34% school attendance. She no longer looked to the future with excitement or hope. She was on target to achieve only a basic GCSE pass because of what was done to her. The Court of Appeal confirmed Rowland did not explain why he found this material did not prove severe psychological harm. He watched them give evidence and decided they seemed fine. The Court of Appeal said his assessment was wrong.

2. He demolished his own peer pressure finding. The Court of Appeal confirmed Rowland did not identify any substantial evidence to support this. X and Y did not require much encouragement. They simply repeated their behaviour after the first incident rather than learning from it. They did it again. To a different girl.

3. He applied the wrong sentencing guideline. The Court of Appeal confirmed Rowland applied a guideline for offenders with mental disorders that explicitly does not apply to children under 18. It says so in a dropdown on the Sentencing Council’s own website. It was flagged twice in the official bench book for child defendants. He applied it anyway. This directly affected how he assessed the culpability of each boy.

4. He rejected forensic evidence on the knife. C2’s trousers were examined by a forensic expert who confirmed two stab cuts most likely caused by a sharp bladed implement. C2 told police and repeated in evidence that a knife was used. Rowland rejected this based on watching CCTV and stated as a finding of fact that if someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers. He chose his own impression over forensic evidence and over her testimony. 

What the prosecution got wrong — also confirmed by the Court of Appeal:

1. The prosecution’s own sentencing notes contained errors of law.

2. They did not follow proper procedure.

3. They gave the judge inadequate guidance on the correct sentencing framework for child defendants.

The judge was not properly supported to reach the right decision. That is a systemic failure — not just an individual one.

What has not changed:

1. Not one of the three offenders has accepted that the girls did not consent. The judgment confirms this explicitly - each of them has a limited understanding of what consent is and how it might be communicated. They have served months of their sentences without ever acknowledging what they actually did.

2. C1 is still in crisis. She is self-harming. She is expressing suicidal ideation. The boys are going to detention. She is still living with the consequences every single day.

3. Judge Rowland is still on the bench.

4. The JCIO still cannot investigate sentencing decisions.

5. Nobody monitors whether individual judges follow sentencing guidelines.

6. Victims still have only 28 days to apply to the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

The appeal corrected one sentence in one case because 300,000 people refused to stay silent. The system did not correct itself.

What we are demanding — the Judicial Sentencing Accountability and Transparency Act (JSAT):

1. Mandatory automatic review when sentences fall significantly below guidelines in cases of sexual violence

2. Full public transparency of individual judicial sentencing records

3. Expanded powers to investigate sentencing patterns — not just personal conduct

4. Real enforceable removal powers for judges who repeatedly fail survivors

5. Parliamentary oversight of judicial sentencing in sexual violence cases

6. Automatic mandatory review triggered by misogynistic language or reasoning in sentencing remarks.

Because justice should not require 300,000 signatures to arrive.

And what was decided still was not enough.

Please keep sharing the petition. Please keep writing to your MPs. Please keep making noise.

Thank you for everything.

Olivia Skye Founder @judicialaccountabilityuk holdthebenchuk@gmail.com

Laura Richards BSc MSc MBPsS 

Criminal Behavioural Analyst, Former Head of the Sexual Offences Section at New Scotland Yard, Founder of Paladin

@crimeanalyst @laurarichards999