Outrage as Delivery Men Jailed for Sexual Assault of Teen Receive Shorter Sentence Than Woman Convicted for Racist Tweet

Two delivery men who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl in her Preston home have been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison, sparking widespread controversy as their punishment is two months shorter than that of Lucy Connolly, a woman jailed for a racist social media post. The case has reignited debates over sentencing disparities in the UK, with critics decrying what they call a “two-tier justice system.”

Sadnam Singh, 28, and Navjot Singh, 26, both from Wolverhampton, were convicted of sexually assaulting the teenager in February 2024 while delivering a television unit purchased by the girl’s mother on eBay. According to court proceedings at Preston Crown Court, the men entered the home while the girl’s mother was at work. Sadnam Singh pinned the 14-year-old against a wall and assaulted her, while Navjot Singh watched and laughed before also assaulting her. The traumatized victim locked the door after the men left and called her mother in hysterics. Lancashire Police arrested the perpetrators later that morning.

Following a trial, both men were found guilty of sexual assault. On June 16, 2025, they were sentenced to 30 months in prison, ordered to sign the sex offenders register, and subjected to an indefinite sexual harm prevention order and restraining order. Detective Constable Ben Clegg of Preston CID condemned the “horrible assault on a teenager,” emphasizing that the victim was violated in a place where she should have felt safe. “I welcome the sentence imposed by the judge,” Clegg said, though public reaction has been far less approving.

The sentencing has drawn sharp criticism due to its comparison with the case of Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old former childminder from Northampton, who was jailed for 31 months in October 2024 for inciting racial hatred. Connolly, the wife of a former Conservative councillor, posted a now-deleted tweet on July 29, 2024, hours after the Southport murders of three girls, calling for “mass deportation” and urging her 10,000 followers on X to “set fire to all the fing hotels full of the b***s.” The post, viewed 310,000 times, was deleted within four hours, but Connolly pleaded guilty under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. Her appeal to reduce the sentence was rejected by the Court of Appeal in May 2025, with Lord Justice Holroyde ruling it was not “manifestly excessive.”

Posts on X have highlighted the sentencing disparity, with users like @Wommando noting, “Sadnam Singh and Navjot Singh, who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl in her home, were sentenced to 30 months each. Lucy Connolly, sentenced for 31 months for a deleted X post. There’s no justice in UK.” Others, including @TheHarrisSultan, called the outcome evidence of why “people are getting mad,” while @WorldByWolf went further, arguing that Connolly “should be at home with her child” and the assailants “should be publicly hanged.”

Connolly’s case has become a lightning rod for free speech debates, with figures like Boris Johnson branding her 31-month sentence a sign of Britain becoming a “police state” under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The Free Speech Union, which funded Connolly’s appeal, called the sentence “grossly disproportionate” for a single tweet, pointing to shorter sentences for crimes like child sexual exploitation. Supporters, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that Connolly’s punishment reflects a politicized justice system targeting “low-hanging fruit” to deter anti-immigration sentiment.

However, defenders of Connolly’s sentence, including Starmer, argue that inciting racial hatred, especially amid the volatile unrest following the Southport attacks, warrants severe punishment. Judge Melbourne Inman KC noted the tweet’s wide reach and potential to fuel violence, stating, “You did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.” Critics of the delivery men’s sentence, meanwhile, argue that 30 months is woefully inadequate for a predatory assault on a vulnerable teenager, with some X users labeling it “pathetic” for such a “hideous crime.”

The cases have fueled public outrage, with many questioning the proportionality of UK sentencing. Reform UK’s Mark Arnull, leader of West Northamptonshire Council, acknowledged constituents’ concerns about sentencing disparities, while activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu argued that the solution lies in harsher penalties for serious crimes, not leniency for Connolly. “She tweeted saying someone should die,” Mos-Shogbamimu said, rejecting free speech defenses.

As the debate rages, the Preston assault case underscores deep public frustration with perceived inconsistencies in the justice system, raising urgent questions about how the UK balances punishment for violent crimes against penalties for online incitement.