The decision to review the sentences of three teenage boys convicted of raping two girls, aged 15 and 14, in separate incidents in November 2024 and January 2025 is correct. A knife was used to threaten the second victim, and the attacks were filmed and later uploaded to social media. Given the severity of the crimes, and the fact that two of the boys went on to rape another girl two months later, the non-custodial sentences handed down by a judge in Southampton look like a serious mistake.
Fortunately, the law in England and Wales allows for overly lenient sentences to be revised by the Court of Appeal. In this case, a dramatic request came from one of the victims herself. In a BBC television interview, she said the youth rehabilitation orders felt like 'a rock straight in my face' and made her question the point of reporting the crimes. Her mother made a public plea to the prime minister: 'Please help.'
It seems certain that the attorney general, Richard Hermer, will refer the sentences up the chain. Most convicted rapists are sent to prison for several years. The judge cited the youth of the offenders as reasons for not jailing them (two were 14 and the other 13 when the rapes were committed). But while rehabilitation is important, it is concerning that the impact on the victims appears to have carried less weight.
It is also wrong that deterrence did not feature more prominently in the judge's reported remarks. At a time of acute concern about violence against women and girls, and the proliferation of technologically enabled abuse such as filming assaults, sentences send important messages. The normalisation of sexual violence, in which online pornography has played a key role, may have influenced these boys' behaviour and made it less likely they would face serious consequences.
The timing is awkward for the government. Earlier this month, David Lammy launched a youth justice white paper containing proposals including a network of small regional youth jails and a consultation on raising the age of criminal responsibility. It used wording about 'not criminalising children unnecessarily' that was echoed by the judge. Ministers must now make clear that letting rapists walk free was not what they meant. The white paper states that 'for the most serious offences, custody will always be necessary.'
But the government must also do more about tackling threats to girls and women, in the context of a growing sense that they are not up to it. This was added to by the recent resignation of the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips, and by a teenage rape survivor's brave decision to speak out.
