The Court of Appeal has heard that detention was the "only appropriate sentence" for three teenage boys who escaped imprisonment after being convicted of raping two girls. The boys, aged 14 and 15, received non-custodial sentences in May despite being found guilty of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences involving two victims.
Details of the Offences
The girls were separately assaulted in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025. Two 15-year-old boys, referred to as X and Y, participated in both assaults, while a 14-year-old, identified as Z, incited the rape of the second victim. The attacks occurred in an underpass beside the River Avon, according to reports.
X received a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) including 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for rape and creating indecent images of both complainants. Y was handed an identical sentence for three rape charges against each complainant and four counts of creating indecent images through filming the attacks. Z was issued with an 18-month YRO for two rape charges relating to the second complainant after inciting the second defendant, plus an indecent images offence.
Legal Challenge and Arguments
The Attorney General challenged the sentences at the Court of Appeal as "unduly lenient" following considerable public outrage. During Wednesday's hearing, barristers contended that detention represented the only suitable punishment and argued that elements of the sentencing judge's reasoning were "fundamentally flawed". 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."
Mr Little 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."
Sentencing Judge's Reasoning
During sentencing, Judge Rowland stated that while X and Y were categorised by Youth Justice Services as "medium risk" of reoffending but "high risk of serious harm" to young females, he needed to take into account their personal circumstances. He explained that X had received an ADHD diagnosis and suffered from "long-standing anxiety" while Y possessed an IQ within the lowest 1%, had ADHD with "extreme neurodevelopmental impairment" and behaved "more like an eight-year-old".
Mr Little conceded in court that Z was "plainly in a different position" compared to X and Y given his younger age and involvement in just one of the rapes, though his offending remained "sustained". However, in written submissions, he added: "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 placed upon the three boys, barring them from contacting either victim for 10 years, ought to have been indefinite, noting that 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 argued: "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, appearing for Y, informed the court that his client "behaved deplorably and disgracefully and deserves to be punished", yet had become a "pariah" following public backlash after his sentencing, inflicting upon the boy "substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear".
Mr Henry stated that by describing 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 concluded: "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
In a statement issued to the Press Association before the hearing, one of the victims said the attack on her "has left me harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same" and that the trial of her attackers "broke something inside me". She said: "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.
