Decision not to jail two teenagers for rape was wrong, court of appeal rules

First judge found to have erred by giving 15-year-olds youth rehabilitation orders for rape of two girls in Hampshire

Two 15-year-old boys who were spared custody for raping two girls have been sentenced to four years’ detention after the court of appeal ruled their sentences were “unduly lenient”.

After a national outcry , the attorney general, Richard Hermer, referred the case to the court to consider whether the sentences given to three boys – identified only as X, Y and Z – were too light.

The convictions related to the rape of two girls in separate incidents in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January last year.

In the first attack, a 15-year-old girl was raped by X and Y, both aged 14 at the time. In the second attack, at which Z was present, X and Y took it in turns to rape a 14-year-old girl while the others encouraged and filmed the offending.

On Thursday, the lady chief justice, Sue Carr, sitting at the high court in London with two other judges, said the trial judge had erred by giving them all youth rehabilitation orders.

Addressing the boys, who attended the hearing via video link from Southampton crown court, Carr told X and Y: “We have decided that we do need to change your sentence and that both of you do need to go into detention.

“We have made that decision because we think that what you both did was so bad that we have no other choice. You both raped two girls on two different occasions. You were enjoying it and egging each other on. You made it worse by filming what you did, which was a horrible thing to do.”

She said their sentences would be reduced by the amount of time each had spent in detention before trial and half of the time they spent on curfew. They would then serve half of the remaining sentence after those deductions. Restraining orders on contacting their victims would be extended from 10 years to life and they would also be subject to police notification requirements for life, she said.

Carr told Z, who was 13 at the time of the offence, that although he had not physically raped a girl, what he had done was also “very bad”, by encouraging Y to rape the second victim. She said: “We have decided that because you were very young and find some things really very difficult to understand, and because you were only involved on one occasion, we do not need to change your sentence.”

At Southampton crown court on 21 May, X and Y were each given a three-year youth rehabilitation order and intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS). Z was given an 18-month youth rehabilitation order.

Carr said it was a very difficult sentencing exercise because of the seriousness and number of offences and the ages and vulnerabilities of the offenders. But the “crucial feature” of the cases of X and Y was that “they repeated their behaviour after the first incident, and did it again to a different person in the second incident”.

She said Judge Rowland had failed to take this into account sufficiently in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences, as well as other matters including the ages and vulnerabilities of the victims, the psychological effect upon them – which the court of appeal considered to be severe – and the humiliation and degradation resulting from the filming and group offending.

The families of the two victims said they were “deeply grateful” and “relieved” after the court of appeal’s decision.

One family said: “We believe this was the correct decision, and we are thankful that our voices were heard throughout this process. While nothing can undo our family’s anguish, this outcome brings a greater sense of justice and accountability.”

Hermer said: “No one should have to endure what the victims went through, and I commend their bravery in coming forward and campaigning for justice.”

Carr also expressed concern about “inaccurate reporting and misinformed and inappropriate commentary by members of parliament” that appeared to stem from an inaccurate Crown Prosecution Service press release. The press release, issued after the initial sentencing and not corrected until 10 June, incorrectly said the offending had involved a knife-point rape and that the second victim had been forced to give up her phone to avoid tracking.