Three boys convicted of rape will not go to jail. A judge decided this because of their intellectual challenges. This decision follows separate attacks in 2024 and 2025.
The boys were found guilty of 10 counts of rape. Two boys, aged 14, raped one girl. A third boy, aged 13, helped in the attack. Experts told the court that putting one boy in jail would harm him. His intellectual problems are very complex.
Ghana's justice system prioritizes rehabilitation for young offenders. Custody is a last resort for children. Judge Nicholas Rowland highlighted the need for individualised sentencing. The focus should be on helping young people get better, not just on the crime itself. This approach aligns with the government's Youth Justice Service advice.
Judge Nicholas Rowland explained his decision in detail. He said the first offender, J, has ADHD. He also has "slight cognitive difficulties." The second defendant, N, has an IQ in the bottom 1%. He suffers from ADHD and "extreme neurological impairment." His mother said he acts like an eight-year-old. "I am quite sure that N's culpability was reduced as result of his profound impairments," the judge stated. "His understanding of what went on must have been far more limited than a 14 year old operating at a level without his deficits." The youngest boy, E, has "very low intellectual capacity." He also has limited understanding of consent.
The two older boys, J and N, received three-year youth rehabilitation orders. These include 180 days of supervision. The youngest boy, E, received an 18-month order. These orders mean the boys live in the community. They will be closely monitored for progress. The judge stated that custody is only for "last resort." Rehabilitation is the main goal for young people.
The judge distinguished this case from others. He noted the specific facts and the offenders' characteristics were "very different." He reviewed evidence of consent. The victims initially consented to some sexual activity. Consent was withdrawn later, especially after a phone was used to film. Initial consent did not excuse the rapes. The judge also found no evidence of a knife being used in the attacks. This was a key point in his decision. If a knife was used, his decision would have been different.