Background
Three boys (X, Y, Z) were sentenced on 21 May 2026 for sexual offences against two girls. At sentencing, the judge delivered oral remarks establishing the factual basis for his decision, finding that one complainant (C2) had voluntarily placed her phone in a shop and that there was no knife-point rape or kidnapping. These findings were available to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Immediately after sentencing, the CPS issued a press release containing two material factual inaccuracies: stating the boys were convicted of “a knife-point rape” and that C2 was “threatened with a knife and forced to leave her mobile phone and AirTag” in a shop. The press release became the source for widespread sensationalist media reporting. The judge faced public vilification, including a petition with over 100,000 signatures calling for his investigation. On 26 May, the Attorney General announced he would refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, issuing a video statement and press release describing the case as “horrific” and associating it with government policy on violence against women and girls. The Attorney General then gave a podcast interview on 29 May stating he had read “the evidence and the details” and that they “confirmed my initial reaction.”
The CPS press release was not corrected until 10 June 2026—20 days later—and only through a quiet re-release of the same document bearing the original date, not through a standalone clarification. Defence counsel wrote to the Attorney General’s office and CPS on 27–28 May alerting them to the inaccuracies and the threat to the judge’s safety and judicial independence, but received no substantive response.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal issued this follow-on judgment separate from its decision on the merits of the References. The court found serious failures in the administration of justice. Regarding the CPS, the court accepted the Director of Public Prosecutions’ apology for “egregious” errors due to human error and failure to follow normal clearance procedures. However, the court criticised the CPS for not proactively checking its press release when inaccuracies appeared in the media, and for the inadequate manner of correction—a simple re-release rather than a prominent standalone statement with a link to the judge’s sentencing remarks.
Regarding the Attorney General, the court held that by choosing to make public statements about the gravity of the offending whilst the References were pending, and by professing detailed knowledge of the facts, the Attorney General assumed a responsibility to ensure that what was communicated was fair and accurate. The court found it fell to the Attorney General to publicly correct the factual inaccuracies to protect the administration of justice, the safety of all involved, and public confidence in the justice system. The court further held that the Attorney General, even without knowledge of specific security threats to the judge, must have known from widespread public commentary that the judge was under personal attack, and that government should publicly condemn such attacks on the judiciary. The court noted that whilst the Attorney General properly exercised his statutory power to refer the sentences, his public statements appeared to associate the References with government policy rather than independent prosecutorial judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecuting authorities issuing press releases about criminal proceedings must follow rigorous clearance procedures and correct factual errors promptly and transparently, not through quiet re-releases bearing the same date.
- Government figures who make public statements about the gravity of pending legal proceedings assume responsibility for ensuring accuracy and correcting known misinformation, even if direct regulation of media is limited.
- Public condemnation of personal attacks on judges is a government responsibility necessary to preserve judicial independence and the rule of law, separate from the substance of any legal dispute.
- The Attorney General’s statutory power to refer unduly lenient sentences must be exercised independently and should be clearly separated from government policy agendas, particularly when making public announcements.
Why It Matters
This judgment establishes important principles about the separation of powers and government accountability in high-profile criminal proceedings. It affirms that judicial independence is not merely an abstract constitutional value but depends on tangible government action: correcting misinformation that threatens judicial safety, condemning attacks on judges, and exercising prosecutorial powers free from political association. The decision signals that the judiciary will scrutinise whether government figures fulfil these responsibilities, particularly when they voluntarily enter the public arena.
The judgment also reflects a broader concern about the intersection of social media outrage, government responsiveness, and due process. By establishing that those in power cannot credibly speak about case gravity without addressing known factual errors fuelling public hysteria, the court protects not only defendants and judges but also complainants—here, C2 was adversely affected by public misconceptions about her own testimony. The decision calls for institutional reforms (CPS clearance procedures) and political restraint (separation of prosecutorial decision-making from government narrative), addressing systemic threats to fair trial rights and judicial independence.