‘Who judges the judges? The accountability crisis in British justice’ 

Britain is facing a crisis of confidence in its justice system. Recently, a sickening case which Gisèle Pelicot termed deeply shocking and Prime Minister Keir Starmer labelled “appalling” sparked national outrage, prompting 32 MPs to sign an open letter expressing concern to the Lady Chief Justice and more than 250,000 people to sign a petition calling for an investigation into the Judge involved and also for wider judicial reform.

In this case, two schoolgirls were raped in two separate, premeditated attacks by three boys, one of them at knifepoint. The boys filmed it, laughing, then uploaded the footage to social media, permanently digitising the trauma of their victims. The boys denied their guilt on 16 out of the 17 charges. Despite this, presiding Judge Nicholas Rowland praised their conduct, cited that both had ADHD, and declared that they were “immature” and may not understand “risk-taking behaviour”. Disregarding evidence of the predetermined location set up by the attackers, he characterised the offences as “spontaneous”.

READ MORE: ‘In the workplace, in the home, in public services – our Labour government is transforming women’s lives’

Despite the gravity of these crimes, the rapists were handed youth rehabilitation and restraining orders, as the Judge wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily”. In her victim impact statement, one girl stated she was “ready to die”. When discovering the judgement, she questioned the point of testifying at all. 

A Damning Indictment 

The crisis in rape prosecutions is already severe, with both MPs and legal representatives describing it as rape being “effectively legalised”. At minimum, one in three women experiences sexual violence during her lifetime. Yet fewer than three in every hundred rapes reported in England and Wales result in a charge or summons. Survivors reporting face risk of re-traumatisation, having their private lives dissected and their credibility challenged through a gruelling legal process. Given the systemic barriers victims face, it is unsurprising that the vast majority choose not to testify at all. The result is a system in which sexual violence remains both under-reported and under-prosecuted.

The pervasiveness of gendered discrimination was highlighted by the recent report, Scratching the Surface, which found 72.5% out of 91 cases contained at least one instance of victim-blaming, identifying 530 instances across 66 judgments in total. This raises a troubling question; if victim-blaming is so readily identifiable in the tiny fraction of cases that enter the public domain, what remains unseen in the thousands that never do? During the parliamentary report launch, CEO of Women’s Aid Farah Nazeer described the statistics in it as “indefensible”. There are now widespread calls for an independent public inquiry. 

Himpathy In The Courtroom

“L alleged she was forced at knifepoint to participate in nonconsensual sexual activity. I am sure this did not happen.” …. “At the very most, an implement might have been used to cut her leggings” – Judge Rowland 

This case is not an aberration, but indicative of a system which is structurally failing survivors. It speaks to two elements; firstly, the systematic minimisation of harm to women and girls and secondly, the prevalence of “himpathy”. This is when male perpetrators are regularly afforded extraordinary lenience, rehabilitation and second chances disproportionate to their crimes, while endless endurance is expected of their female victims to absorb the damage done. 

In the recent case, the Court of Appeal subsequently described the sentence as “unduly lenient”, yet declined to intervene, citing the impact imprisonment would have on the boys. At the same time, Judge Rowland’s own sentencing remarks referred to one defendant as being a “high risk of serious harm to female children”. 

The contradiction is difficult to reconcile. If an individual presents a high risk of serious harm, why was the protection of current and potential future victims subordinated to concerns about the impact custody might have on the offender?

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

The disparity is also starkly reflected in the punishment itself. The collective financial penalties imposed for multiple rape convictions amounted to £26. By comparison, failing to pay a television licence can attract a fine of up to £1,000, and for certain kinds of criminal damage, £2500. In the eyes of the law, sexual violence, psychological traumatisation and digitisation of two girls’ extreme suffering is seemingly worth less than the licence fee. 

The pattern is unmistakeable; boys’ and men’s futures are treated as ultimately salvageable while girls’ and women’s lives are treated as collateral damage and their safety deprioritised. These decisions seriously undermine our justice system and deepen the mistrust that survivors hold. 

Restoring Public Trust   

This debate is not ultimately about one judge, one sentence or even one case. It is about whether the judiciary can retain credibility while it exercises immense power without meaningful scrutiny. 

Every other public institution entrusted with significant authority is subject to oversight. Ministers answer to Parliament. Police forces face independent inspection. Local authorities are routinely audited. Yet judges exercise some of the state’s most consequential powers within accountability structures that are opaque and arguably inadequate. A survivor described this as “judges still marking their own homework”. Award-winning barrister Dr. Charlotte Proudman also spoke out on this, stating “The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office is not fit for purpose when it comes to addressing concerns about judicial conduct, bias or misogyny.”

Judicial independence is essential. But independence was never intended to mean immunity from scrutiny. On the contrary, accountability is a prerequisite for legitimacy.

Every unduly lenient sentence risks reinforcing a damaging belief that the justice system does not take violence against women and girls seriously. Women and girls deserve far better. Sexual violence must be treated as preventable rather than inevitable, and criminalised not merely in theory but in practice. In the era of the manosphere, where gendered violence is discernibly rising, restoring trust in the justice system is not peripheral to the government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls, but fundamental to it.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].