Three teenage boys were handed non-custodial sentences in May despite being convicted of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences
Detention was the “only appropriate sentence” for three teenage boys who escaped custody after being found guilty of raping two girls, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Two 15 year old boys, referred to as X and Y, and a 14-year-old, referred to as Z, received non-custodial sentences in May despite being found guilty of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences involving two victims.
The girls were separately assaulted in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025. The two older boys participated in both assaults, while the 14 year old encouraged the rape of the second victim.
The Attorney General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient” following widespread public outcry, reports the Mirror.
At a hearing on Wednesday, barristers contended detention was the only suitable punishment and stated aspects of the sentencing judge’s approach were “fundamentally flawed”.
The boys, who have not attended the hearing in London, are challenging the attempts to have their sentences increased.
Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, said: “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 continued: “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 received
- X received 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 was handed the same sentence for three charges of rape against each of the two victims 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, and for an offence of indecent images.
Judge Rowland stated at sentencing that while X and Y were assessed by Youth Justice Services as “medium risk” of reoffending but “high risk of serious harm” to young females, he was required to take their backgrounds into account.
He noted that X had been diagnosed with ADHD and “long-standing anxiety”, while Y had an IQ in the bottom 1%, had ADHD with “extreme neurodevelopmental impairment” and presented “more like an eight-year-old”.
Mr Little acknowledged in court that Z was “plainly in a different position” from X and Y owing to his younger age and involvement in only one of the rapes, but maintained that his offending was “sustained”. However, in written submissions, he continued: “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 on the three boys, barring them from contacting either victim for 10 years, ought to have been indefinite, noting that this had caused the victims “very significant concern”.
‘Unduly lenient’
Clare Wade KC, representing X, contended 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, informed the court that his client “behaved deplorably and disgracefully and deserves to be punished”, but had been rendered a “pariah” amid the public outcry that followed his sentencing, which inflicted upon the boy “substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear”.
Mr Henry argued that in referring 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 said: “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.”
In a statement issued to the Press Association prior to the hearing, one of the victims stated that 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, before the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton, are expected to conclude on Thursday.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login