Court of Appeal judges ruled that the sentence handed down by judge Nicholas Rowlands to a man convicted of rape ‘was too low but not so low that this court should intervene’
The judge who spared a teenage rape gang from detention was challenged by the government last year for an “unduly lenient” sentence in another rape case.
Judge Nicholas Rowland has been heavily criticised for sparing two boys aged 15 and one 14, from custodial sentences after they were convicted of ten counts of rape in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, over two separate attacks in 2024 and 2025.
Ellie Reeves, the solicitor-general, appealed against the sentence Judge Rowland handed to Joshua Blachford, a restaurant manager who admitted rape. Rowland told the court that “numerous testimonials” from the defendant’s friends and family “show a wholly different side to you” and jailed him for three years and nine months.
READ MORE: Ex-Prince Andrew detectives in sex crime probe amid claims woman ‘sent by Epstein’READ MORE: Victim of one of UK’s worst justice miscarriages left with ‘£10,000 bill’ after compensation fight
Court of Appeal judges ruled last November that the sentence was arguably “not merely verging on the unduly lenient but was properly to be described as unduly lenient”. However, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, sitting with two other judges, concluded it “was too low but not so low that this court should intervene”.
Last month Judge Rowland gave a convicted sex offender a 12-month community order after he was caught with images of bestiality.
Daniel Rushton, 39, previously received a suspended jail sentence in 2023 after admitting an attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child online. Rowland told the paedophile: “Continue with the progress you’re making, otherwise things will take a turn for the worse.”
Judge Rowland was appointed a part-time judge, known as a recorder, in 2003. He became a circuit judge in 2014 and is based at Southampton crown court.
Judges are bound by law to follow official guidance when sentencing and they are given a specific set of rules when dealing with children convicted of sexual offences.
The primary objective is that custody should be a “last resort” and courts must focus on the defendant’s rehabilitation while not “criminalising children and young people unnecessarily”.
Sentencing Council guidelines say: “While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point, the approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence-focused. For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible.”
It adds domestic and international laws dictate that a custodial sentence should “always be a measure of last resort for children and young people”. A custodial sentence may only be imposed when the offence is “so serious that no other sanction is appropriate,” the guidelines state.
It adds: “The primary purpose of the youth justice system is to encourage children and young people to take responsibility for their actions and promote re-integration into society rather than to punish.”
A second set of guidelines says judges must take into account “aggravating factors”, including was there any penetrative activity involving coercion, threats or use of violence, prolonged detention and severe psychological or physical harm to the victim.
Other aggravating factors included a “significant degree of planning”, acting with others to commit the offence and “deliberate humiliation” of the victim –including filming of the offence.
Mitigating factors include no previous offences, good conduct or exemplary behaviour, being particularly immature and communication or learning disabilities or mental health concerns.
For the Attorney General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal with a view to increasing the severity of a sentence a high bar must be reached. It must be judged “unduly” lenient and “manifestly inadequate”.
The Lord Chancellor and the Lord/Lady Chief Justice are jointly responsible for disciplining judges for misconduct. They are supported by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), which looks at complaints about how a judge has behaved personally.
It cannot be used to challenge a judge’s decision, something that can only be addressed by appeal to a higher court.
