Judge wrong to spare rapists from custody, court told
The Court of Appeal is examining whether the community sentences imposed on three boys convicted of raping two teenage girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, were excessively lenient.
A judge was deemed "wrong" to issue community sentences rather than custodial ones for the three boys, the Court of Appeal heard.
The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal on grounds of being "unduly lenient."
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, stated:
"It is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for [the boys] was detention."
However, the boys' legal representatives argued that the judge had correctly approached sentencing by prioritising rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending.
One of the assaults occurred in an underpass near the River Avon in Fordingbridge.
Warning: This story contains details some may find distressing.
All children involved have been granted anonymity due to their ages; the offenders are referred to as X, Y, and Z.
The first victim, referred to as C1, was 15 when she was raped by X and Y in November 2024 at an underpass near a river in Fordingbridge. Prior to the rape, there was some consensual sexual activity with X. Portions of the assault were recorded on video.
The second victim, C2, aged 14, was raped by X and Y in January 2025 at a recreation ground in Fordingbridge. Similarly, some consensual sexual activity preceded the rape, which was also partially filmed, this time by Z.
At the time of the offences, X and Y were 14 years old, and Z was 13. Collectively, they were convicted of 10 counts of rape.
Tom Little KC argued that the judge was "wrong to conclude that a community sentence could be justified for any of them."
"Had the judge properly assessed the seriousness of the offences, he could only reasonably have concluded that lengthy sentences of detention were required for both X and Y and that a sentence of detention was required for Z," he said.
During the hearing, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr criticised the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for issuing an inaccurate press release that suggested a knife was involved in the rapes.
When Judge Nicholas Rowland handed down the sentences at Southampton Crown Court in May, there was significant public outcry from the victims, their families, and politicians. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the case as "appalling."
One of the victims described the sentences as a "slap on the wrist."
She told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg:
"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."
C2 told night she was experiencing vivid flashbacks.
"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 said.
Judge Rowland sentenced X and Y to three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance.
The third boy, Z, now 14, received an 18-month YRO.
All three were also subject to a three-month curfew and a 10-year restraining order prohibiting contact with the victims.
In his sentencing remarks at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Rowland explained his intention to avoid "criminalising" the boys unnecessarily.
He noted that sentencing guidelines require custody to be used as "a last resort."
He also considered that X and Y had effectively served 18-month and 17-month sentences, respectively, due to curfews imposed while awaiting trial.
'Different approach'
During the Court of Appeal hearing, Tom Little KC acknowledged that the judge attempted to apply relevant principles but argued:
"Our submission is he misapplied them along the way, the cumulative effect of which was to lead to unduly lenient sentences."
He further stated that the judge's sentencing remarks made limited reference to the significant impact on both victims and the extensive harm caused by the offences.
Ed Henry KC, representing Y, said the boy had been made a "pariah" due to misleading public perception fueled by an inaccurate CPS press release.
"Y behaved deplorably and disgracefully and he of course deserves to be punished," Henry said.
"But the public outcry, the opprobrium... has gravely exacerbated his punishment."
Henry KC added:
"Parliament has decided that when sentencing children an entirely different approach is required."
He noted that Y has an IQ in the bottom one percent for his age and a very simplistic understanding of the concept of consent.
On behalf of X, Clare Wade KC submitted:
"We submit that the learned judge approached the sentencing exercise correctly.
The sentences imposed broadly provide the best opportunity for the child offenders to learn and develop and provide the most effective way of protecting women and girls in future by preventing future offending."
Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr criticised the CPS for issuing a press release that inaccurately claimed the boys had been convicted of a "knife-point rape."
"The judge made an express finding to the contrary," she said.
"I would like to know what steps are being taken to prevent anything like this ever happening again."
She also expressed serious concerns about the delay in correcting the press release.
"How on earth could it have taken so long, given all of the inaccurate reporting about the nature of this offending that was swirling around immediately?" she said.
The hearing, presided over by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Ms Justice Norton, is scheduled for two days.
The boys have been instructed to attend Southampton Crown Court at 14:00 on Thursday to view the judges' decision via videolink.
