Judge ‘wrong’ to spare boy rapists from custody, court told
Warning: This story contains details some may find distressing
Judge wrong to spare boy rapists – The Court of Appeal has taken up the task of evaluating whether the sentences handed to three young offenders convicted of raping two teenage girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, were insufficiently severe. Attorney General Lord Hermer labeled the sentences as “unduly lenient” during the proceedings, urging the court to reconsider their approach. Tom Little KC, representing the attorney general, argued that the gravity of the offenses warranted stricter punishment, stating that detention was the only appropriate outcome for the boys.
At the time of the incidents, two of the perpetrators were 14 years old, while the third was 13. They were found guilty of 10 rape charges collectively, with the first girl, C1, 15 at the time, assaulted in an underpass near the River Avon in November 2024. This followed consensual sexual activity with one of the boys, and parts of the attack were recorded on video. The second victim, C2, aged 14, was raped in a recreation ground in January 2025. Similarly, consensual activity preceded the assault, which was also captured by the third boy, Z.
“It is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious that the only appropriate sentence for [the boys] was detention,” said Tom Little KC.
The boys’ legal team contended that the judge had applied sentencing principles correctly, aiming to balance rehabilitation with protection from future harm. Judge Nicholas Rowland, who imposed the original sentences, emphasized his intent to avoid unnecessarily criminalizing the young offenders. He cited sentencing guidelines that prioritize custody as a last resort, noting that X and Y had already served time equivalent to 18 and 17 months through curfews during their trial.
However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) faced criticism for a press release that incorrectly suggested a knife was involved in the rapes. Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr pointed out the error, highlighting its impact on public perception. The sentences sparked outrage from the victims, their families, and political figures, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who called the case “an appalling example of leniency.”
“It almost made it seem as if what the boys did was not OK—but it was OK in the eyes of the law because they were still children,” said one of the victims.
C2, who experienced severe psychological distress, described the sentences as a “slap on the wrist,” expressing fear of encountering the offenders again. “I just want to be able to go on a walk without being scared that I’m going to see them and they’re gonna try to do something again,” she shared with BBC Newsnight.
Rowland’s decision included three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YRO) for X and Y, paired with 180 days of intensive supervision. Z received an 18-month YRO, along with a three-month curfew and a 10-year restraining order to prevent contact with the victims. Little KC asserted that the judge misapplied the sentencing guidelines, leading to lighter penalties than warranted by the harm caused.
