In January 2007 Judge John Rogers QC made the headlines when he dished out a suspended sentence to a man convicted of downloading child porn.
Derek Williams faced a lengthy prison term after admitting to downloading nearly 200 pornographic images of children, from level one to the more serious level four, onto his computer. The sentencing guidelines at the time recommended that a custodial sentence should be the starting point for any possession of child pornography, but in passing down a six-month prison sentence suspended for two years, Judge Rogers cited a letter that had recently gone out from the then Home Secretary, John Reid, instructing judges to “only jail dangerous and persistent offenders.”
Unsurprisingly, the sentence was condemned at the time by both the NSPCC and by children’s charity NCH (now Action for Children).
This week Judge John Rogers has been in the news again. This time over the eight month jail sentence he’s given to a rape victim* for “falsely withdrawing” her original allegations against her perpetrator.
That’s right. The judge who jailed a rape victim last week is the very same judge who once let a child pornographer walk free because he was “bearing in mind” the home secretary’s advice to only jail dangerous and persistent offenders.
I’m assuming in the three years since that advice went out Judge Rogers has completely forgotten just how happy he’d been to take it to heart at the time.
Incidentally, earlier this year the same judge, Judge John Rogers QC, or Big John as he’s “affectionately known at the bar“, gave a suspended prison term to a man convicted of breaking his wife’s arm with a piece of exercise equipment:
“A 35-YEAR-old woman had her arm broken by her husband – when she already had her leg in plaster following an earlier injury.
David James Higgins, 41, had used an item of exercise equipment to strike wife Emma, the mother of his two teenage children, Mold Crown Court was told on Friday.
He hit her to the plastered leg two or three times and then -as she put her arms above her head to protect herself – he struck her to the arms about six times….
….Judge John Rogers QC told him: “I have to deal with you for assaulting your wife by striking her repeatedly to the arm with a piece of exercise equipment.
“The force of your blows caused a fracture to one of the forearm bones.”
The judge said that the offence was made much more serious because it was committed in the presence of their two teenage children.
“A prison sentence is therefore inevitable,” he said.
Judge Rogers added that there were, however, important pieces of mitigation.
He had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, when he knew that his wife had made a retraction statement.
It was clear that he did regret what he had done, he was a man of good character, and the judge said that he had to bear in mind that a period of custody would result in his sons and wife being separated from him.”
And just last month Judge Rogers gave another suspended sentence to a man whose assault on his wife left her with a fractured nose and a deformed jaw:
“Judge John Rogers QC told Powley: “You carried out an wholly unprovoked and unpleasant assault on your wife.
“It was not only frightening for her, but she suffered nasty facial injuries including a fracture to her nose.
“A prison sentence is inevitable if a husband or partner assaults his partner,” he said
But he had decided to suspend the sentence because it was an isolated incident.”
The question now has to be, why does Judge John Rogers think that a victim who was “”emotionally blackmailed” by her significantly older husband during the breakdown of their marriage” and who “told officers she had been persuaded by her husband and his family to drop the charges because he could face a long jail sentence if convicted of rape” has committed a more heinous crime than men who beat their wives? Why does Big John think that a rape victim is more deserving of a prison sentence than a man who breaks his wife’s arm, or a man who assaults his wife so badly she’s left with a deformed jaw?
And why did Big John think it was okay to let a child pornographer go free, but it was not okay to apply the same criteria, of only jailing those who are “dangerous and persistent offenders,” to a woman who was quite clearly not a dangerous offender but instead a victim, not just of rape but of intimidation and coercion as well?
As you’ve probably already heard, yesterday Judge John Rogers QC considered the grounds to appeal in this case “and considered that his decision last week was the correct one”
Well I beg to differ.
The appeal is now going to the Court of Appeal in London. Hopefully it will be heard soon.
*Should anyone wish to send letters of support, please direct them to the solicitors acting on her behalf who will ensure she receives them: Geraint Jones & Co, Bronwydd House, The Bank, Newtown, Powys, SY16 2AU.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
we need to get angry.
is there anything we can do? i’m thinking the kind of action advocated by inga musico in cunt. shaming and naming and embarrassing this man. i want to fill this man’s car with used tampons, sit outside his court and chant that this man gives domestic violence offenders a get out of jail free card? is there a north wales feminist network we can get in touch with? is there a letter writing campaign we can set up to ‘big john’s’ boss citing these examples?
i feel so angry and so helpless at the same time. what can we do?
What a complete fuck this man is.
Big john small morals
M2M
I agree with Paul.
sianushka I think we need to be guided by what the woman in this case wants. I know people are in touch with her solicitor, who is obviously in touch with her, so as soon as I hear anything I’ll post it here.
As for Big John – he’s actually supposed to have retired in May, so I’m slightly baffled as to why he’s still hearing cases.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/judicial-130510-019.htm
Unless it means he retired as a Circuit Judge, but stayed on as another sort of judge.
Is there some sort of pressure we can mount to get Big
MisogynistJohn removed from the bench?Whilst we are at it, can we also remove Judge Julian Hall as well? He’s another one with a history of letting abusers and rapists walk free or with very light sentences, particularly paedophiles, with whom he seems to have some sort of affinity (hint hint).
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=924190
Un-fucking-believable!
Well researched! Unbelievable man, unbelievable decision. It’s time to ACT.
skocking in the extreme. imagine any of this occured in public, those outraged folks over at the daily mail would be UP IN ARMS about suspended sentences. i think the term domestic violence might be better done away with altogether, it just makes vicious assaults sound like lover’s tiffs..
Can I just echo everyone else…. Unbelievable!!
Great post Cath for exposing this man and his own judicial form when it comes to violence against women.
I bet if the scenario was different, say the man who deformed his partner’s jaw did it after a fight in the street to either a man or a woman (in an isolated incident) he would be looking at prison. But it seems like you are free to be violent if the person is your female partner without any come back esp. if Judge “Big John” is presiding over the case.
Shameful, absolutely shameful!
I have sent a letter of solidarity to the woman via her legal team. I have sent letters of solidarity etc. to women who had been given life imprisonment for killing a violent partner in self-defence.
There’s a shiny new disciplinary board for judges set up under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Below is the latest Annual Report if you want to know just how unfit for office one has to be to become a high court judge.
Tho OJC can and do dismiss judges. Their remit includes bias and ‘inappropriate comments in court’ (very busy department) but they don’t look at judicial decisions. Most people use it to try and appeal their own convictions, and their applications are rejected. A bias claim has to be broad enough not to look like such an appeal.
You need, therefore, to show a pattern of decision making even to get heard. There were 83 discrimination cases last year and 0 sanctions ordered. It seemed quite good for a minute there, didn’t it? The successful cases have been standard crazy judge stories so far. It is crying out for a history making test case.
Judge James is on his way out anyway, but if he has a long track record, and I’ll bet he does, a complaint might move along that retirement party. It could rebound on the woman in question first though (I have a feeling she or one of His Honour’s other victims would need to be the complainant). I hope this link works:
Office for Judicial Complaints Annual report 09/10
Thanks for the link Angie.
In most of the cases regarding judges, there is ALWAYS a fairly good history of lenient/biased decisions, that is the main reason why they come to our attention.
what a fucking evil woman-hating fuckhead.
This “man” is a danger to society
I said the Office for Judicial Complaints has dismissed judges following complaints. Looking at their decisions, they haven’t dismissed anyone for a complaint of discrimination yet. They have only upheld 3 of about 180 discrimination claims in 5 years, and the sanction was a reprimand each time.
Before this complaints procedure was introduced, judges were entirely unaccountable, so it’s an improvement of sorts. Unaccountability does have the benefit of ensuring the independence of the judiciary against government intervention. It’s a shame that the identical social background of politicians and judges makes that independence irrelevant most of the time.
A kind of general, broad-brush comment…
I think it’s a little premature to be chucking around big, complicated words like “mysogynist”. w.r.t Judge John Rogers.
One explanation of Judge John Rogers’ jailing of the retractive, alleged rape victim, could be a deep-seated fear and/or hatred of women.
It’s my opinion though, that alleged rape victim fell foul of something that knows no gender boundaries: The colossal pomposity and exagerrated regard for the strict rules of the legal process that almost define the mindset of the judiciary.
Commit the most heinous crime you like, but if you put in a guilty plea and show some contrition and a bit of mitigation and you’ll almost certainly be shown some degree of mercy, however slight.
Mess around with the workings of the criminal justice system itself, however – by retracting a complaint at a late stage, say – and you’ll get nailed to the wall for showing disrespect to a noble and worthy institution.
Just one man’s attempt at judicial mind-reading here…
@ andywilkinson
And might it not be possible that this entitled attitude to have the world centred around oneself with a complete lack of empathy for others’ realities is in fact informed and supported by misogny*?
* easy to practice but surprisingly hard for some to spell
@Spicy
Yeah, absolutely. That’s to say, it’s perfectly possible that the judge’s – ahem – severe treatment of the alleged rape victim might be rooted in misogyny.
The key word here being “might”… Unless he were to stick his head above the parapet and sound off about sticking it to that stupid bloody woman, or similar sentiments, it’s conjecture really, isn’t it?
To my mind, it’s enough to be a member of a privileged elite, remote from and indifferent to, the concerns and lives of the “real” people.
No need to go around imagining hatred when callous aloofness and uninterested incomprehension will do the job just fine.
To my mind, it’s enough to be a member of a privileged elite, remote from and indifferent to, the concerns and lives of the “real” people.
And yet all of his decisions seem to negatively affect a certain category of ‘real people’. I am curious about your resistance here – do you really believe that it can only be termed misogyny when there are overt declarations of hatred for women? Who benefits from such a narrow definition?
To my mind, it’s enough to be a member of a privileged elite, remote from and indifferent to, the concerns and lives of the “real” people.
Oh FFS Wilkinson, they are at least smart enough not to spell it out, and to couch their real feelings into high-brow legal-speak.
I’ll just bet that you are the type of potential juror that would not convict a rapist because he didn’t look like Jack the Ripper complete with Victorian Cape. Gimme a break.
@Spicy
All of them? His decisions, that is…? Have you researched all of his decisions as a high court judge, or are you just going on the cherry-picked highlights in this blog, hmmm?
@FAB Libber
Ok, I see: Coded bigotry. Fine, except maybe I don’t decode it the same way that you do… Along with a puerile (or should that be “puellarile”?) ad hom.
FWIW, I think that you’ll find the group who are most blighted by this legal nitwit’s pronouncements are the poor, the desperately ordinary and downtrodden. Y’know – socio-economic classes and all that?
FWIW, I think that you’ll find the group who are most blighted by this legal nitwit’s pronouncements are the poor, the desperately ordinary and downtrodden. Y’know – socio-economic classes and all that?
I am assuming you are not idiotic enough to be throwing around accusations whilst being a rank hypocrite so please do share the extensive research you undertook to reach this conclusion.
The bigotry is in his sentencing, idiot. Nothing coded about that.
They don’t actually have to say it in words.
Comprehension is not your strong suit, so give up now.
Why should we have a presumption against misogyny, when society as a whole is full ot it?
Just asking. If you are neutral, as andywilkinson claims to be, you don’t set out with assumption that one option is more likely than another. Have YOU researched all his judgements Andy, or are you just talking off the top of your head?
Yet still you have an opinion on the matter, using nothing more than “judicial mind reading”.
“It’s my opinion though, that alleged rape victim fell foul of something that knows no gender boundaries: The colossal pomposity and exagerrated regard for the strict rules of the legal process that almost define the mindset of the judiciary.
Commit the most heinous crime you like, but if you put in a guilty plea and show some contrition and a bit of mitigation and you’ll almost certainly be shown some degree of mercy, however slight.
Mess around with the workings of the criminal justice system itself, however – by retracting a complaint at a late stage, say – and you’ll get nailed to the wall for showing disrespect to a noble and worthy institution.
Just one man’s attempt at judicial mind-reading here…
Well of course, it’s a MAN’S attempt, therefore we should all listen to it. A man’s unsubstantiated opinion being so much more valuable than a woman’s who at least bothered to do SOME research.
Or are you really Derren Brown?
The point of the piece Andy, (if you bother to actually read it) is that the sentencing in this case, is inconsistent with the Judge’s own earlier justification for some pretty lenient sentencing. Therefore we don’t need to read all his decisions, but merely ask why IN THIS CASE he went again his own declared principles.
There were a number of sentencing options open to him yet he chose imprisonment for someone who there was no evidence was actually dangerous, after choosing to free several people who quite clearly were actually dangerous in that they had committed violenct offences. I think we’re entitled to ask why. And if you can have an opinion, so can other people.
cheers cath – will be following that course of action, colleague at bristol fawcett sent round some info which will be useful.
not to wade in to the fray too much, but when society supports misogyny, which it undoubtedly does, i think it is ok to call the judge a misogynist. i don’t think it’s a complicated term. i think it is pretty easy to get away with hating women in this society, even if you are perfectly nice looking on the outside.
@FAB Libber
Well, THAT formatting went completely up the left, wups.
@ andywilkinson
Still waiting for details of your research that led you to conclude that ‘the group who are most blighted by this legal nitwit’s pronouncements are the poor, the desperately ordinary and downtrodden. Y’know – socio-economic classes and all that?’
Or are we to conclude that you are indeed a rank hypocrite?
Still waiting for details of the research that prove this legal nitwit is a woman-hater?
Won’t hold my breath tho…
You’re the one insisting that conclusions cannot be drawn without more extensive research so I’ll take that as an admission of utter hypocrisy on your part. One rule for women and another rule for women. Now what does that remind me of…?
Obviously that should have said ‘one rule for women and another for men’
I am not the author of this blog Andywilkinson, so I’m not expressing anything, Cath Elliott is.
And – like most people who write a blog, she’s expressing an opinion, it’s how the whole bloggy thing works. And her opinion is that the Judgey man’s sentencing is inconsistent. She doesn’t actually say he is definitely a misogynist, or even that he is possibly a misogynist, (use ctrl + F to search if you don’t believe me) she recounts some cases and says she doesn’t think his sentencing is fair.
And neither did I say he’s definitely a misogynist, I’m asking why you’re starting with a presumption against it.
Do try to read more carefully.
The point is, if you really want to provoke the judiciary, try messing with the legal process: Get convicted of Perjury / PCJ and you’ll get nailed to the wall.
If you bump up against those who administer criminal justice, rightly or wrongly they have the means to push back and the power to make it stick and they’re not shy about doing so.
Sounds like you’re being pretty damn certain there Andy! No ‘mights’ or ‘maybes’ that I can see!
based on the level of obvious stupidity present in this mans brain, i assumed he was american, as insane things tend to happen there more often, on account of having more people.
though, his geographical closeness means direct action is more possible, and i think for someone so obviously in comtempt of womens rights, we have a moral duty to stop him practicing law when it leaves victims of domestic violence locked up for being raped.