
Nine men who abused girl should have sentences increased, Court of Appeal told
Darbyshire first targeted the girl when she was aged 13, and she was then abused by him and the eight other defendants over two years, mainly in the Blackrod and Adlington areas of Bolton, Greater Manchester.
The Solicitor General has referred all nine sentences to the Court of Appeal, telling a hearing in London on Tuesday that they are 'unduly lenient' and should be increased.
Barristers for the men are resisting the bids to increase the sentences, while Poulson and Harwood are separately seeking to appeal against the length of their jail terms.
Lord Justice Edis, Mr Justice Butcher and Judge Angela Morris said they will give their ruling at 11.30am on Wednesday.
Benjamin Holt, appearing for the Solicitor General, told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that the sentences 'did not match the gravity of the case' as the men 'took it in turns to abuse this victim'.
He said: 'The broad submission is that when the learned judge came to sentencing in this case, each of these offenders had committed a number of offences against an incredibly vulnerable victim.'
Mr Holt continued: 'When passing sentence on the offenders, the learned judge has failed to reflect the entirety of the offending that each of these individuals was convicted of.'
He also said that a 'constant theme' of the abuse was the victim being plied with alcohol and drugs.
The men were arrested following Operation Pavarotti, Greater Manchester Police's investigation into child sexual exploitation allegations in the area.
Darbyshire first contacted the victim on social media in 2016, when she was aged 13 and he was 19.
He went on to abuse her until she was 15, raping her twice and introducing her to the other defendants, four of whom also raped her.
Much of the abuse took place in a house in Blackrod, which the sentencing judge described as a 'lawless den of iniquity'.
Mr Holt said that the offending only came to an end when Bainbridge-Flatters, who gave the victim cocaine on her 15th birthday, stole a car belonging to the father of another of the men and crashed it while under the influence of alcohol, with the girl a passenger in the vehicle.
The victim, who was injured in the crash, then disclosed that she had been repeatedly sexually abused.
Ahead of his trial, Darbyshire admitted multiple offences against the victim and four other girls aged under 16, one of whom he also raped.
Sentencing him at Liverpool Crown Court in April, Judge Simon Medland KC said Darbyshire had a 'crazed attitude to sex' and treated his victim as a 'human sexual commodity'.
In her victim personal statement, the girl said: 'I'd rather be dead most days than deal with all this mental torture and memories.
'I shouldn't have had to grow up so young and spend the rest of my life 'healing' from what these monsters did to me, leaving me in my own prison I built for myself in my own mind for the rest of my life.'
At the hearing on Tuesday, Damian Nolan, for Darbyshire, said that his client had a brain haemorrhage before he was due to stand trial.
He said: 'We submit that the ultimate sentence imposed was within the ambit of discretion afforded to Judge Medland.
'We would urge the court to leave the sentence unaltered.'
Ian McLoughlin KC, for Barrett, said that his client's sentence was 'perfectly within the remit of a proper judge exercising his discretion'.
Rosalind Emsley-Smith, for Bainbridge-Flatters, said that while her client's jail term 'may be a generous sentence', it was not 'overly generous'.
Many of the offenders watched proceedings via video links from various prisons.
Darbyshire, 28, from Bolton, was jailed for 15 years after admitting 19 offences, including rape, sexual activity with a child and making indecent images.
Barrett, 24, from Wigan, was jailed for 12 years after being convicted of five counts of rape and one of assault by penetration.
Poulson, 32, from Bolton, was jailed for 17 years after being convicted of 11 offences, including two counts of rape.
Harwood, 25, from Bolton, was jailed for 10 years after being convicted of rape, attempted rape and sexual activity with a child.
Haslam, 36, from Bolton, was jailed for 16 years after being convicted of seven offences, including three counts of rape.
Turner, 27, from Bolton, was jailed for two years after being convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child.
Fitzgerald, 37, from Bolton, was jailed for five-and-a-half years after being convicted of assault by penetration.
Corley, 30, from Bolton, was jailed for two years and four months after admitting two counts of sexual activity with a child.
Bainbridge-Flatters, 35, from Bolton, was jailed for seven years after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child, and pleading guilty to supplying cocaine and aggravated vehicle taking.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Lucy Letby convictions under scrutiny as experts challenge trial evidence in new ITV doc
An ITV documentary, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, features medical experts questioning the evidence that convicted nurse Lucy Letby of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven others, as her legal team pursues a potential appeal Several medical experts criticise the 'deeply disturbing' and 'flawed' evidence used to convict killer nurse Lucy Letby in a new documentary on TV tonight. Letby was found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies and attempting to kill seven others and was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison. But in ITV 's Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? her barrister Mark McDonald says: 'There's no direct evidence, no one saw her do anything wrong.' It comes after it was reported that 'scared' Letby can't lose weight as she hoards 'junk food' behind bars. He adds: 'In the trial, they started from the starting point, 'She has done harm. Now we have to show how she has harmed each just going to put together a theory.' And she was convicted on that theory.' Two appeals have failed. But in February a panel of medical experts, led by Dr Shoo Lee, found Letby did not murder any babies. Her defence team has now submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Dr Neena Modi, ex-president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, says: 'It's been deeply disturbing that one can have such a... tremendously important trial that seems to have been conducted with so many flaws.' One alleged flaw is a shift chart, used to prove Letby was always present when the babies were harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital from 2015 to 2016. But statistician Professor Jane Hutton says some incidents, when Letby was not working, were left off, adding: 'This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.' It was also claimed Letby must have caused one baby's death by removing a breathing tube. But several experts say the tubes can be dislodged for a 'variety of reasons'. Notes by Letby, including the phrase 'I am evil I did this' were presented as confessional in court. But it is claimed she was encouraged by hospital staff to write down her feelings to help cope with stress. It is also alleged the prosecution's lead expert, Dr Dewi Evans, has altered his view about how three babies died since the case. But he denies this, saying his evidence has been agreed by a jury and the Court of Appeal. He also argues the case by Dr Shoo Lee's panel has not been held to scrutiny in court and contains significant factual errors. The CPS said: 'Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials. 'In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby's leave to appeal on all grounds, rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.' It added that it is considering police files on further baby deaths and collapses at the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women's Hospital.


Scotsman
2 days ago
- Scotsman
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Are you struggling to make ends meet as costs continue to rise? You can now send your stories to us online via YourWorld at It's free to use and, once checked, your story will appear on our website and, space allowing, in our newspapers.


The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Miscarriage of justice watchdog investigates cases of 175 people handed abolished indefinite jail terms
The country's miscarriage of justice watchdog is investigating at least 175 cases which saw offenders, including children and young people, handed abolished indefinite jail terms. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has announced it has launched a major project to review applications from prisoners languishing on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. The open-ended sentences, which were scrapped in 2012 and have been described as 'psychological torture' by the UN, have left thousands trapped in jail for up to 22 times longer than their original tariff. This includes many who were children at the time of their offence and handed a type of IPP sentence for under-18s called a Detention for Public Protection (DPP) jail term. Now scores of cases are set to be reviewed by the watchdog after a string of IPP and DPP sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal. Eight of 12 cases referred to the appeal judges for review have resulted in the sentences being quashed, reduced or substituted. This includes father-of-three Leighton Williams, who was wrongly handed an IPP sentence with a 30-month tariff for a drunken fight aged 19. He served almost 16 years under the sentence – mostly in custody – before it was quashed and replaced with a five-year determinate sentence in the Court of Appeal last year. If he had served half of that time in custody, he would have been out of prison by the time he was 22. Three appeal judges finally set him free on 9 May last year, aged 36, after finding the original sentencing judge had wrongly counted a previous offence, committed when he was 17, against him. After he was released, he told The Independent the jail term had robbed him of 16 years, adding: 'I have missed out on growing up with my friends. Going out. Getting a trade, being able to work. Just living a normal life. 'I deserved to go to jail – I understand that. There is no doubt about that. But for the length of time – I don't think you can justify that.' In a similar ruling in October, Darren Hilling's IPP sentence was quashed and substituted because the sentencing judge had failed to attach the necessary importance to his age and maturity when he committed his crime aged 21. Other victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for robbing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. At total of 2,486 IPP prisoners were still languishing in overcrowded prisons without a release date at end of June. Almost 700 of them have served at least ten years longer than their original tariff. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives in prison as they lose hope of getting out, according to campaigners. The CCRC project will see the body – tasked with independently reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice – consider up to eight current applications from people serving IPP and DPP sentences, before systematically re-reviewing a backlog of 175 historic applications to see if they should be referred to the Court of Appeal in light of the recent judgments. 'This starts with young people principally because that's where the chink of light is from the Court of Appeal,' CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird told The Independent. Reviews will start with those who were handed indefinite jail terms as children, before looking at those aged 18 to 25, followed by those over 25. This is because sentencing judges may have considered previous convictions as children when they handed out the jail terms to adults. However there is no timeline for the wide-ranging review and Dame Vera warned the CCRC has been allocated no additional resources for the project. The news has been welcomed by campaigners, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, which this summer called for a special CCRC process for IPP prisoners in a major report on the jail term. Other recommendations put forward in the report, including seeing all remaining prisoners given a release date to work towards at their next Parole Review, are being considered by the government. Their director of campaigns Andrew Neilson said he was thrilled to see the CCRC take this 'hugely positive' step, adding: 'Justice is long overdue to the thousands of people serving IPP sentences in prisons and in the community, and we hope that this will be one of many similar policies that will finally end the suffering of this abolished sentence for good.'