Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland

His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland

Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, is a long-serving Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South West Circuit.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland was called to the Bar in 1988 and practised as a barrister for over 25 years before becoming a full-time judge.

He was appointed a Recorder (part-time judge) in 2005 and sat at Southampton Crown Court, before being appointed a Circuit Judge on the 23rd June 2014 on the South West Circuit, where he has served as a permanent judge based at Southampton Combined Court Centre ever since.

We are pleased to announce that His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, a former member, has been appointed to the Crown Court bench to be based in Southampton.

3PB Barristers Autumn 2014 News

Detailed public records on Judge Rowland’s pre-appointment professional background (such as whether he practiced as a barrister or solicitor, chambers affiliation (3 Paper Buildings (3PB) is one of the UK’s oldest chambers), year of call to the Bar, or areas of specialization) are limited.

Unlike some judges whose biographies appear on chambers websites, judicial profiles, or in appointment announcements with full career histories, Judge Rowland’s pre-bench career is not extensively documented in open sources.

HHJ Rowland is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward RowlandSouth West23-06-2014
List of Circuit Judges

Judge Rowland Legal Controversy – Judge Praises Behaviour of Teenage Rapists

A gang of three teenage boys from the traveller community in Hampshire have avoided custodial sentences after being convicted of multiple rapes against two schoolgirls in separate attacks in Fordingbridge.

In November 2024, two boys aged 14 lured a 15-year-old girl via Snapchat to a riverside underpass, where they raped her while laughing and filming the assault on their phones. Just two months later, the same pair, joined by a 13-year-old boy, subjected a 14-year-old girl to a knife-point gang rape in a park, again recording the attack and encouraging each other to degrade her further.

On the 5th March 2026, following a five-week trial at Southampton Crown Court, the three boys were convicted. The two older boys, now aged 15, were found guilty of multiple counts of rape and taking indecent images of a child. The youngest boy, now aged 14, was convicted of two counts of rape. They were sentenced on the 21st May 2026.

Despite the seriousness of the offences which included filming and the use of a knife in one attack, His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland sentenced all three to youth rehabilitation orders rather than prison. The two older boys received three-year orders with intensive supervision, while the youngest received an 18-month order.

Judge Rowland cited the defendants’ young age, low intellectual capacity, ADHD issues, vulnerability to peer pressure and limited understanding of consent as key mitigating factors.

Judge Rowland told them: “None of you need to go to prison today,” and praised their good behaviour during the trial “You have all done very well with the restrictions put in place throughout the trial. (The second boy) and (the third boy) your problems are quite bad.“ stating he wished to avoid “criminalising these children unnecessarily” and focus on their rehabilitation.

Judge Rowland’s lenient sentence has sparked significant public outrage and political criticism, with senior politicians describing it as “soft justice” and calling for tougher penalties for such serious sexual offences against children.

The case has reignited debate over the sentencing of young offenders in England and Wales, particularly in cases involving extreme violence and the filming of sexual assaults.

On Friday 22nd May 2026, a government spokesperson said that the Attorney General’s office had received “multiple” requests for the sentences to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) if they think the sentence is too lenient. 

The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers (Attorney General or Solicitor General) and if they consider the sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.

On Tuesday 26th May 2026, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that the sentences will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Rowland may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Rowland should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Rowland : Microsoft Copilot

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Stuart Farquhar, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 9th June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent