Background of the Case
Three teenage boys convicted of raping two girls in separate incidents were not sentenced to custody by a judge, who considered detailed evidence regarding the nature of their offenses, their rehabilitation prospects, and significant intellectual limitations affecting two of the offenders.
The sentencing, which occurred last month, sparked public outcry after the boys received youth rehabilitation orders (YROs) despite being found guilty of a total of 10 counts of rape related to assaults in Hampshire during 2024 and 2025.
Release of Full Sentencing Remarks
The complete transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks has been made publicly available following a request by the BBC. These remarks reveal the complexity of the sentencing process, including expert submissions on the boys' neurological impairments and their ability to comprehend the impact of their actions on the victims.
The sentences are currently under review and have been referred to the Court of Appeal.
Details of the Offenses
Two boys, aged 14 at the time, were convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in November 2024 in Fordingbridge.
In a separate incident in January 2025, a 14-year-old girl was raped by the same two boys, with a third boy, aged 13, found guilty of rape by aiding and abetting that attack.
Expert Evidence on Intellectual Impairments
According to the transcript, an expert from the government's Youth Justice Service informed Southampton Crown Court that placing one of the boys in custody would be detrimental due to his complex intellectual impairments.
Judge Nicholas Rowland noted that the first offender, referred to as J, was diagnosed with ADHD and had "slight cognitive difficulties," but emphasized that these did not diminish his personal culpability.
The second defendant, N, was found by experts to have an IQ in the bottom 1% compared to peers. He suffered from ADHD and "extreme neurological impairment," which prevented him from coping with standard schooling. His mother described him as being comparable to an eight-year-old boy.
"I am quite sure that N's culpability was reduced as result of his profound impairments," Judge Rowland said.
"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, was assessed by a psychologist as having "very low intellectual capacity" and limited understanding of consent.
Sentencing Considerations and Legal Guidelines
These intellectual and developmental factors, among others, led the judge to conclude that custody was not appropriate. Sentencing guidelines for children emphasize that custody should be a "last resort," with rehabilitation as the primary focus.
"The approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence-focused," the judge stated.
"For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible."
The two older boys, J and N, were each given three-year YROs with 180 days of intensive supervision. The youngest boy, E, received an 18-month YRO.
These sentences allow the boys to remain in their communities under strict supervision to monitor their progress.
Judge's Sentencing Process
The transcript reveals that Judge Rowland divided the sentencing into two stages.
In the first stage, he addressed the boys directly using simple, general language, following judicial guidance to communicate with child offenders in an understandable manner. During this phase, he referred to their offenses as "serious things."
He told the boys that the restrictions imposed were a punishment and would be overseen by experts "so that you do not do the things that jury decided you did do."
The second stage, not previously fully reported, involved the judge providing a detailed and legally complex explanation for the court record to clarify his reasoning to legal counsel.
He informed both defense and prosecution teams that the case was not comparable to previous cases where boys of similar ages had been sentenced to youth custody for sexual offenses.
The facts of the Fordingbridge attacks - and the characteristics of the offenders - were "very different," he said.
The judge noted that evidence and jury verdicts indicated both victims initially consented to some sexual activity but withdrew consent later, particularly after a phone was used to film the acts.
The judge emphasized that initial consent did not excuse the rapes.
He also stated that there was "no violence or exploitation," but the offenses were aggravated by the boys acting together and filming the incidents.
"I do not find there was planning in either part," he said.
Judge Rowland further noted that the two lead defendants, J and N, had already served the equivalent of 18 and 16 months respectively in detention within local authority accommodation or under curfew.
"That is a significant feature when determining whether an immediate custodial sentence must follow," the judge said.
