Two boys initially spared custody after being convicted of raping two girls have been jailed after their original sentences were quashed.
The Court of Appeal ordered the two 15-year-olds to be sent to young offender institutions after their violent attacks in Fordingbridge, Hampshire.
Two boys known as X and Y were initially given community sentences with rehabilitation requirements after being convicted of 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences relating to the victims, ‘vulnerable’ girls aged 14 and 15.
The boys were involved in both attacks and received three-year youth rehabilitation orders, while a 14-year-old, who encouraged the rape of the second victim, was handed an 18-month term. Parts of both assaults were filmed on the boys’ mobile phones.
Court of Appeal judges Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Ms Justice Norton and Lord Justice Edis today ruled to increase the older boys’ sentences after the Attorney General Lord Hermer referred them under the ‘unduly lenient’ scheme.
The trio – who cannot be named because of their ages – appeared at the London court via video link from Southampton Crown Court, where they were originally sentenced in May.
X and Y were given four-year sentences in youth detention. The youngest boy’s sentence remained unchanged.
Baroness Carr told the boys: ‘We have thought very hard about everything we have read, and everything we have been told.
Appeal Court judges (left to right) Ms Justice Norton, Lord Justice Edis and Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr ruled the two older teenagers should go into custody
‘Having done so, we have decided that we do need to change your sentences, and that both of you do need to go into detention.
‘We have made this 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.’
Addressing Z, Baroness Carr 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.’
She added that trial judge His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland’s ‘assessment of seriousness’ was the issue at the heart of the appeal.
But she said he had erred in this regard, because he did not properly consider the age and vulnerability of the girls, or the ‘severe’ psychological harm caused to them.
X and Y would have each been jailed for terms ‘substantially in excess of 10 years’ had they been adults at the time, she said.
Yesterday, Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, said Judge Rowland was ‘wrong’ to spare the trio custody, and said detention was the ‘only appropriate sentence’ for them.
One of the rapes took place in this underpass in Fordingbridge in Hampshire, in November 2024
Judge Rowland had said the offences of the two 15-year-olds ‘crossed the custody threshold’, but he should ‘avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily’.
Mr Little said the judge failed to properly consider the psychological impact on the young victims, or the girls’ vulnerability, as he set out the case for harsher punishments.
He said the judge also appeared not to properly consider the ‘clear evidence of extensive harm’ suffered by the girls.
Addressing the Appeal Court judges, Mr Little said parts of Judge Rowland’s approach to sentencing were ‘fundamentally flawed’ and that he demonstrated a ‘failure to grapple with the seriousness of the offending’.
Mr Little added: ‘A community sentence could simply not be justified for each of these child offenders despite their ages and any intellectual limitations.’
He said ‘no sentence other than detention was appropriate’ for the trio.
Edward Henry KC, for Y, told the Court of Appeal the strength of public outcry was in part down to an error in a Crown Prosecution Service press release which wrongly stated a knife was used during one of the rapes.
He said Y, whose IQ is in the bottom 1% of children his age, had ‘behaved deplorably and disgracefully’, but that ‘the opprobrium, the sheer force of hatred on social media’ had made his punishment worse.
The boys’ sentences were considered at the Court of Appeal
Tracy Ayling KC, for Z, the youngest defendant, said publicity based on inaccurate information was ‘particularly unfortunate’.
And Clare Wade KC, for X, said that Judge Rowland ‘approached the sentencing exercise correctly’.
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr – the most senior judge in England and Wales – criticised the CPS for including inaccurate information and demanded answers, particularly given claims the errors were not corrected until two weeks after they were spotted.
Baroness Carr said: ‘I would like to know what steps are being taken to prevent things like this ever happening again.’
She said that the court was ‘considering what our options are’ in relation to the error.
A CPS spokesperson said: ‘Following the trial, the CPS issued a press release which reflected the prosecution case at trial, but did not accurately reflect the judge’s findings in relation to the offending. We later amended the release to correct this and regret the error.
‘It is essential that our public communications accurately reflect court findings. We have reviewed the circumstances of this case and we will identify lessons for the future.’
The case provoked a strong reaction from politicians and members of the public aghast that the teens had been spared jail.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said afterwards: ‘These despicable youths should have been jailed.
‘This is a sickening case of soft justice.’
Boys X and Y were also handed lifelong restraining orders not to contact either victim again.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login