Criminal cases are rarely simple. A trial may last for weeks, involve thousands of pages of evidence and require a jury to decide a series of carefully framed charges. Sentencing may then depend on factual and legal findings as well as detailed analysis that cannot easily be reduced to a headline or even a quickly digestible short news story. A police statement, a Crown Prosecution Service press release or a short social media post can become the accepted version of events within minutes. Once that version has been repeated across news websites and social media, correcting it can be extremely difficult.
A recent Court of Appeal judgment provides a striking example. The case concerned three young teenage boys, referred to as X, Y and Z, who were convicted of serious sexual offences, including rape, against two young teenage girls. The Crown Court judge imposed non-custodial sentences, i.e. they were not sent to prison. The offences were plainly grave. The Court of Appeal subsequently held that the non-custodial sentences imposed on X and Y were unduly lenient and replaced them with four years’ detention. The sentence imposed on Z was left unchanged.
The appeal court was extremely critical of the way the case had been presented to the public because public statements by the authorities had told people that the offence was even more serious than it actually was.
The important point is that seriousness and accuracy are not alternatives. A case can be extremely serious while some of the most widely reported details are nevertheless wrong.
How the wrong account took hold
The three defendants were sentenced at Southampton Crown Court and the judge first spoke to the boys in language intended to help them understand what was happening. Once they had left the courtroom, he delivered more detailed remarks explaining the factual basis on which he was sentencing them.
Those findings mattered. The judge found that the second victim had left her phone and tracking device in a shop by choice, rather than because one of the boys had forced her to do so. He also rejected the suggestion that she had been forced at knifepoint to go with the boys at the outset before the sexual offending. He expressly found that there had been no kidnapping and no planning of either incident.
Immediately after sentence, the CPS issued a press release. It said that the boys had been convicted of a “knife-point rape” and that the second complainant had been threatened with a knife and forced to leave her phone and AirTag in a shop to prevent her movements from being tracked. Those statements were inconsistent with the findings the judge had just made.
The Court of Appeal later recorded that sensational reporting began almost immediately and relied heavily on those inaccuracies, particularly the suggestion that a knife had been used to force the complainant into the situation. Public outrage followed. The sentencing judge and the boys became the targets of widespread condemnation.
This was not simply a case of a newspaper misunderstanding a difficult judgment. The inaccurate account came from an official prosecuting authority. That gave it a high level of authority.
A prosecution case is not the same as a judicial finding
The explanation eventually given by the Director of Public Prosecutions was revealing. The press release had been drafted before the sentencing hearing and was based on aspects of the prosecution case advanced at trial. After the hearing, it was updated to record the sentences, but the description of the facts was not revised to reflect the judge’s findings. Normal legal checking and clearance procedures had not been followed.
That distinction is fundamental. What the prosecution alleges is not automatically what a jury or judge has found.
A jury usually gives verdicts of guilty or not guilty on individual charges. It does not normally publish a detailed written account identifying every part of each witness’s evidence that it accepted or rejected. Where the precise circumstances affect sentence, the judge may therefore need to determine the factual basis on which the offender is to be sentenced, always consistently with the verdicts.
It is entirely possible for a defendant to be convicted of a very serious offence while the court rejects some of the prosecution’s account of how it happened. Reporting the rejected allegation as an established fact does not make the conviction more accurate or the complainant better protected. It simply gives the public a false account of the case.
This is an important lesson whenever a criminal case is reported. Words such as “alleged”, “convicted”, “admitted” and “found by the judge” are not interchangeable. They describe different stages and different levels of certainty.
Why the mistake mattered
Some may ask whether the difference really mattered. The boys had been convicted of rape and other sexual offences. Why be concerned about whether a knife was used or how a phone came to be left in a shop?
The answer is that details of this kind can transform the public’s understanding of an offence. An account involving coercion and planning involving the use of a weapon presents a materially different picture from the factual basis identified by the sentencing judge. It can affect how people assess culpability, danger, planning and the apparent adequacy of the sentence.
The inaccurate account also distorted criticism of the judge. Much of the outrage was directed at the decision not to impose immediate detention. Yet many of those criticising the sentence were doing so on the basis of facts that the judge had expressly rejected.
There is a further and easily overlooked problem. The Court of Appeal stressed that the misinformation harmed more than the offenders and the judge. It also affected the second complainant. Because the press widely reported the disputed account, the fact that part of her evidence had not been accepted was itself given much greater publicity than might otherwise have occurred.
Inaccurate reporting did not protect her. It exposed a sensitive evidential issue to national attention.
Accuracy in criminal reporting is therefore not a favour to defendants. It protects complainants, witnesses, judges and the justice system as a whole.
The correction came too late and too quietly
Defence lawyers raised concerns within days. Counsel for X warned that press reports were misstating the factual basis of sentence and asked the CPS to issue a corrective statement. Leading counsel for Y separately contacted the Attorney General’s Office, referring to the personal vilification of the judge and the risk that the appeal proceedings would take place against a background of hostile and misleading reporting.
The original CPS release was not amended until 10 June, almost three weeks after sentence. Even then, the correction was made by altering the existing document, which retained its original publication date. There was no prominent new statement explaining what had been wrong or drawing public attention to the sentencing remarks.
The Court of Appeal regarded that response as inadequate. The DPP accepted that the original errors were serious, that the correction took too long and that ordinary checking procedures had not been followed. He apologised, and the court accepted the apology. The CPS also indicated that its clearance arrangements were being strengthened.
The court nevertheless observed that a high-profile error required a high-profile correction. Quietly changing an old document was not enough. It said that a fresh, standalone document should have been published, potentially including a link to the sentencing remarks.
That makes sense. A silent amendment is unlikely to reach the people who saw the original story. By the time a correction appears, the inaccurate version may have been copied into articles, videos, posts and discussions across the internet.
The first account often travels furthest. A correction days or weeks later rarely receives the same prominence.
Public officials must take particular care
The follow-on judgment also considered comments made by the Attorney General after he had referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
The court did not suggest that the Attorney General was generally responsible for monitoring every newspaper report. Its concern was narrower. He had become a party to live appeal proceedings, had chosen to speak publicly about the gravity of the case and had indicated that he had examined the details.
By that stage, the formal applications submitted to the court did not rely on the claim that the offence had been committed at knifepoint. They also did not challenge the sentencing judge’s finding that the complainant had left her phone and AirTag voluntarily. The Attorney General was therefore advancing the appeal on a basis that did not include the two facts receiving so much attention in the press.
In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal concluded that public statements about the seriousness of the offending should have been fair and accurate. Known misinformation should not have been allowed to gain further credibility. The court also criticised the absence of any public condemnation of the personal attacks on the sentencing judge.
This was not an attempt to prevent criticism of judges or sentences. Open justice depends on scrutiny, and judicial decisions are not immune from disagreement. The point is that criticism should be based on what the court actually decided, not on an inaccurate summary of allegations that the court rejected.
The unduly lenient sentence procedure itself demonstrates how the system is meant to respond. Where a qualifying Crown Court sentence appears unduly lenient, the Attorney General can ask the Court of Appeal to review it. That is what happened here. The court increased the sentences of X and Y while deciding that Z’s sentence should remain in place.
A lawful appeal process is very different from public pressure built on misinformation.
What this means for defendants
For anyone accused of an offence, inaccurate publicity can feel like a second prosecution taking place outside the courtroom. A person may face a careful legal process in court while an oversimplified or plainly incorrect version circulates online.
The consequences can be severe even where reporting restrictions prevent publication of a name. Family members, employers, colleagues and local communities may identify the case. In cases without anonymity, a misleading account may remain searchable for years. It can affect employment, relationships and personal safety long after the proceedings have ended.
The legal team’s first responsibility is always the criminal case itself. Publicity should not be allowed to distract from disclosure, evidence, expert reports, witness preparation and trial strategy. Nevertheless, where an official statement misstates the case, it may be important to act quickly.
That can include identifying precisely what is wrong, preserving copies of the original publication and comparing it with the charges, verdicts and judicial findings. The relevant authority may need to be asked to issue a clear and prominent correction.
Where proceedings remain active, any response must be carefully considered. A badly judged public statement can cause further damage, prejudice the proceedings or breach reporting restrictions. The answer is not necessarily to fight publicity with more publicity. It is to take controlled, informed action based on the legal position.
The judgment also shows the value of detailed sentencing remarks. When a case is controversial, a clear public record of what the judge found and why a particular sentence was imposed can prevent allegations from filling the information gap.
In this case, the Court of Appeal noted that the full sentencing remarks had not been available to the press at the time of sentence. That made the official press release particularly influential and increased the harm caused by its inaccuracies.
The internet does not respect the difference between allegation and proof
Modern news moves quickly. Press releases are copied into online articles, shortened into social media posts and discussed by people who have never seen the evidence or attended court. Each retelling tends to remove qualifications.
An allegation becomes “what happened”. A disputed fact becomes “what the defendant did”. A complex sentencing decision becomes a claim that the judge did not take the offence seriously.
Criminal courts work differently. They move through evidence, legal directions, verdicts and reasoned decisions. That process can appear slow and cautious because it is designed to distinguish what can be proved from what is merely asserted.
That caution is not a weakness. It is one of the central protections offered by the rule of law.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is therefore about more than one mistaken press release. It is a reminder that public confidence cannot be built by giving the public a more dramatic version of a case than the evidence supports. Confidence depends on candour, context and a willingness to correct errors openly.
It also reminds defence lawyers that protecting a client may sometimes require attention to the public narrative as well as the courtroom argument. This does not mean trying to suppress legitimate reporting or minimise proven offending. It means insisting upon the basic distinction between an allegation and a finding, and ensuring that public authorities do not present one as the other.
Concerned about inaccurate allegations or publicity?
Being accused of a criminal offence is difficult enough without seeing an inaccurate version of the case repeated publicly. Early advice can make a real difference. The sooner the evidence, charges and public statements are reviewed together, the sooner errors can be identified and an appropriate response considered.
Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors provides discreet, strategic criminal defence advice to people facing serious allegations and court proceedings. We examine what the prosecution can actually prove, challenge unsupported assertions and work to ensure that cases are decided on admissible evidence rather than headlines.
If you are under investigation, have been charged or are concerned that an official statement or news report has seriously misrepresented your case, contact Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors today. Do not allow an inaccurate public account to become the only account that is heard.
Speak to a specialist criminal defence solicitor as early as possible so that your position can be protected both inside and outside the courtroom.