Court of Appeal date fixed to examine sentences of Fordingbridge rape teenagers who avoided custody

Three teenage boys who were spared custody after being convicted of raping two girls in Hampshire will have their sentences reviewed by the Court of Appeal next month, following a referral under the unduly lenient sentences scheme.

The two-day hearing, beginning on 1 July, was announced by Attorney General Lord Hermer after the case prompted widespread public outcry and anger from campaigners and politicians. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the original outcome as “really distressing” and confirmed the case would be referred to senior judges for consideration.

The original sentences

The attacks took place in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in two separate incidents between November 2024 and January 2025. In the first, a 15-year-old girl was raped by two of the defendants, who were 14 at the time. The second incident, which involved a 14-year-old girl, was described in court as particularly brutal: she was threatened with a knife as two of the boys took turns raping her while others encouraged the assault and filmed it on mobile phones. Prosecutors said the boys were seen laughing and egging each other on as the attack was “brazenly filmed”.

At Southampton Crown Court last month, Judge Nicholas Rowland imposed non-custodial sentences on all three defendants. Two boys, now aged 15, each received a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS). The first of these two was sentenced for the rape of each of the two victims — who were 14 and 15 at the time — and two charges of making indecent images. The second faced three charges of rape against each of the two victims and four counts of taking indecent images in connection with filming the incidents.

A third boy, now 14 but aged 13 at the time, was given an 18-month YRO for his role in the second attack. He was convicted of two charges of rape by encouraging the second defendant, along with an indecent images offence.

Judge’s reasoning: “custody is a last resort”

In his sentencing remarks, Judge Rowland acknowledged explicitly that the offences committed by the two 15-year-olds “crossed the custody threshold”. However, he said guidelines for youth offenders require courts to treat custody as a “last resort”, adding that he “must have regard to the objectives of youth justice being to prevent offending by children and the welfare of the child”.

“I must consider the respective ages of the children at the time when these offences were committed,” the judge stated. “As was made clear in that decision, it is not just the chronological age I am concerned with, but emotional and developmental age. I need to consider the ages of these children… and proceed on the basis that custody is a last resort.”

Judge Rowland said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and stressed the importance of considering their welfare and potential for reintegration into society. He placed significant weight on the backgrounds of the defendants, which he said went to their emotional and developmental maturity rather than their chronological age.

The first 15-year-old, he noted, had been diagnosed with ADHD and “long-standing anxiety”. The second 15-year-old had an IQ in the bottom 1% of his contemporaries, was diagnosed with ADHD and “extreme neurodevelopmental impairment”, and was described as presenting “more like an eight-year-old”. The 14-year-old was described as having “mild cognitive impairment”, “very low intellectual capacity”, and “emotional immaturity”.

Judge Rowland also noted that the defendants had already served substantial periods under curfew and in local authority accommodation while on bail — time he regarded as equivalent to a significant sentence, estimating 18 months for one and 17 months for another.

The judge acknowledged that Youth Justice Services had assessed the two 15-year-olds as posing a “medium risk” of reoffending but a “high risk of serious harm” to young females. Despite that risk assessment, he concluded that the welfare considerations, combined with the youth justice principle that custody is a last resort, justified non-custodial terms.

Prosecution argument and wider reaction

In court, prosecutor Jodie Mittell KC had argued that the offences were “akin” to a previous case in which a teenage rapist received an eight-year custodial sentence. She told the judge the circumstances — including “vulnerable” victims, “additional degradation and humiliation”, and the filming of the offences — were sufficient to place the case in “category 1 harm“.

The sentences drew immediate and widespread criticism. Former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips called them “unduly lenient” and said they sent “a bad message”. One of the victims described the outcome as “a rock straight in my face”.

Attorney General Lord Hermer, whose office operates the Unduly Lenient Sentences (ULS) scheme, said there was “an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country” and praised the two victims, who he said “displayed immense bravery in coming forward”. The Crown Prosecution Service also referred the case to the Attorney General’s Office for consideration.

The Court of Appeal will now decide whether the sentences imposed by Judge Rowland were appropriate, and has the power to increase them if the judges conclude they were unduly lenient.