Why England cannot afford to become entirely dependent upon judges alone.

The horrifying Hampshire rape case, where teenage boys convicted of raping young girls escaped immediate custody, has reignited a debate that reaches far beyond sentencing. At the heart of the public anger lies a much deeper issue, the growing disconnect between ordinary people and parts of the justice system itself.

When the judge stated he wished to avoid “criminalising” the offenders because they were “very young,” many across England were left stunned. The crimes involved rape, humiliation, filming the attacks, and sharing footage online. Yet the punishment handed down appeared to many people across England to bear little resemblance to the seriousness of the offences.

The public outrage matters because justice in England has always depended not simply on laws, but on trust. Once ordinary people stop believing the courts reflect common morality, the entire system begins to weaken.

That is precisely why juries remain one of the most important protections in English law.

We cannot rely on judges alone to define justice.

We need to remember that Judges bring with them personal beliefs, professional backgrounds, legal philosophies and, at times, social detachment from the realities faced by ordinary working people. Judges are part of a narrow professional system that can become isolated from public feeling and public morality. They are selected by the ‘Judicial Appointments Commission’ partly for their conformist political views. There sentencing is subject to the ‘Sentencing Counsel’ guidelines. Both of these organisations are undemocratic; Sentencing Council.

This case is a powerful example of that danger.

A judge, operating entirely within the legal structure, reached a sentencing decision that huge numbers of ordinary people simply cannot understand or accept. To many members of the public, the punishment appeared completely disproportionate to the suffering inflicted upon the victims. When decisions repeatedly seem disconnected from common sense and public standards, confidence in justice collapses. That is why juries matter.

Juries bring ordinary people directly into the courtroom. They are not members of an elite legal circle. They are nurses, builders, drivers, office workers, carers, factory workers and parents. They represent society itself.

Their presence acts as a safeguard against justice becoming controlled solely by institutions speaking to themselves. Jurors bring balance, public conscience and real-world understanding into a process that might otherwise become cold, technical and detached from reality.

England’s jury system was never designed by accident.

It was built precisely because power should never rest entirely in the hands of officials, judges, governments or authorities alone. The participation of ordinary citizens protects justice from becoming remote and unaccountable.

History repeatedly shows why these issues matter. Without public oversight, institutions can drift away from fairness and become more concerned with legal theory than moral truth. A justice system that no longer reflects the values of the public it serves cannot retain legitimacy for long.

Jurors also deserve far greater respect and support. They are asked to witness horrific evidence, carry emotional trauma and make life-changing decisions on behalf of society, often with little recognition for the burden they carry. If juries are central to democracy and justice, then jurors themselves must be treated properly and supported fully.

Stephen Morris of the Workers of England Union has argued that ordinary people must remain central to the institutions that govern the country. As Stephen Morris has stated:

“Justice only survives when ordinary working people remain part of the system and believe their voice still matters. We need reform of the ‘Sentencing Counsel' to make it democratically accountable to ensure its guidelines reflect common sense and public opinion”

The anger surrounding this case is not simply outrage over one sentence. It is a warning sign. More and more people fear that parts of the justice system are becoming detached from the country they are meant to serve.

That is why England must never weaken the role of juries. Because when ordinary people are removed from justice, justice itself risks losing touch with ordinary people. And once public trust disappears, the entire system begins to fail.

In summary: Understanding the different roles of a judge and Jury

This case involved both a jury and a judge, but they served very different roles. The jury, made up of ordinary citizens, listened to the evidence, examined the facts, and convicted the boys of rape and related offences. In that sense, the jury system worked exactly as it was intended to work.

The controversy came afterwards, when sentencing power rested on a judge who is a state employee following the British State’s direction. The Judge did not impose immediate custody, instead handing down Youth Rehabilitation Orders despite the severity of the crimes. That distinction is crucial because it highlights why public confidence can be damaged when too much authority rests with the British State within the legal system.

The jury reflected the conscience and moral judgment of ordinary people. The sentencing reflected secretive British State guidelines for preferencing rehabilitation over punishment. That is precisely why ordinary citizens should be central to the justice system and why England cannot afford to become entirely dependent upon judges alone.

References

(BBC News, “Girl raped by boys spared jail tells BBC judge's decision was like 'rock in my face',” published 24 May 2026, Ministry of Justice, Publications on jury service and public confidence in criminal justice, Judiciary of England and Wales, Historical role of juries in English law, Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Youth sentencing guidance, Workers of England Union, Public commentary regarding justice, accountability and civic participation and different media outlets).