The Court of Appeal has heard that detention was the "only appropriate sentence" for three teenage boys who avoided custody despite being convicted of raping two girls in Hampshire. Two 15-year-olds, identified as X and Y, and a 14-year-old, known as Z, received non-custodial sentences in May after being found guilty of a total of 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences involving two victims.
Details of the Attacks
The girls were attacked separately in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025. Both older boys participated in the two attacks, while the 14-year-old encouraged the rape of the second victim. Following widespread public anger, the Attorney General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal as "unduly lenient".
Court Proceedings
During Wednesday's hearing, barristers argued that detention was the only appropriate punishment and claimed aspects of the sentencing judge's reasoning were "fundamentally flawed". The boys, who did not attend the London hearing, are challenging attempts to increase their sentences.
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, stated: "We accept... that the judge did try to apply the relevant principles, but our submission is he misapplied them along the way, the cumulative effect of which was to lead to unduly lenient sentences." He added: "It is difficult to understand how the judge could properly have come to the conclusion that he did, given the sheer number of rape offences, which the judge does not properly address in any way in... his sentencing remarks, the underlying seriousness of the offending and the harm sustained."
Sentences Imposed
X was handed a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for raping and taking indecent images of both victims. Y received an identical sentence for three charges of rape against each victim and four counts of taking indecent images by filming the incidents. Z was issued an 18-month YRO for two charges of rape relating to the latter victim after encouraging the second defendant, along with an offence of indecent images.
At sentencing, Judge Rowland noted that while X and Y had been assessed as posing a "medium risk" of reoffending but a "high risk of serious harm" to young females, he was obliged to take their personal circumstances into account. He stated that X had been diagnosed with ADHD and "long-standing anxiety", while Y had an IQ in the bottom 1%, suffered from ADHD with "extreme neurodevelopmental impairment" and presented "more like an eight-year-old".
Arguments for Detention
Mr Little conceded that Z was "plainly in a different position" to X and Y owing to his younger age and limited involvement in only one of the rapes, yet maintained that his offending was "sustained". In written submissions, he argued: "In summary it is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for X, Y and Z was detention."
The barrister further argued that the restraining order barring the trio from contacting either victim for a decade ought to have been permanent, noting this had left the victims with "very significant concern".
Defence Arguments
Clare Wade KC, representing X, maintained that Judge Rowland "approached the sentencing exercise correctly". She stated: "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."
Edward Henry KC, acting for Y, told the court that while his client "behaved deplorably and disgracefully and deserves to be punished", he had become a "pariah" following public backlash after sentencing, inflicting upon the youngster "substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear". Mr Henry argued that by deeming Y's sentence as "unduly lenient", the Attorney General "has not engaged with the compelling evidence that the child whom I represent has a constellation of comorbid conditions that dramatically reduced his culpability". He stated: "The sole question is whether the sentence was outside the range of sentences reasonably open to a judge, who presided over the 29-day trial, heard all of the evidence, and applied the correct legal framework with conspicuous care. In our submission, it was not."
Victim Impact
Speaking to the Press Association before the hearing, one victim described how the attack "has left me harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same", adding that her attackers' trial "broke something inside me". She explained: "I feel like I am carrying what happened every day. I wake up with it, I go to school with it, I try to sit exams with it, and I go to sleep with it. It is always there. I cannot just switch it off. I cannot just move on."
The proceedings, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton, are expected to conclude on Thursday.
