Key facts
- Three teenage boys, two aged 15 and one aged 14, were convicted of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences.
- The offences involved two victims and occurred in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025.
- The two older boys participated in both attacks, while the youngest encouraged the rape of the second victim.
- The boys received non-custodial sentences in May, including youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision and surveillance.
- The Attorney General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal, arguing they were "unduly lenient".
The Court of Appeal is reviewing sentences handed to three teenage boys who avoided custody after being convicted of multiple rape and indecent image offences. The Attorney General referred the cases as "unduly lenient" following significant public outcry.
Two 15-year-old boys, identified as X and Y, and a 14-year-old, known as Z, were convicted of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences. The attacks occurred in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025, with the two older boys involved in both incidents and the youngest encouraging the second rape.
During the hearing, Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, argued that detention was the "only appropriate sentence" given the seriousness and number of offences, and the harm sustained by the victims. He contended that the original judge, Judge Nicholas Rowland, misapplied sentencing principles and failed to adequately consider the psychological impact and vulnerability of the victims. Mr Little submitted that a community sentence was not justifiable for X and Y, and that detention was required for all three.
Judge Rowland had previously stated that the offences of X and Y crossed the custody threshold but opted to avoid criminalising them unnecessarily, citing their backgrounds. X was diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety, while Y had a low IQ and ADHD with "extreme neurodevelopmental impairment." X received a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with intensive supervision, and Y received the same for his offences. Z was given an 18-month YRO for his role in encouraging the second rape and an indecent image offence.
Lawyers for the defence argued that the original sentences were appropriate and offered the best opportunity for rehabilitation. Clare Wade KC, for X, stated the judge approached the sentencing correctly, aiming for rehabilitation and future protection of women and girls. Edward Henry KC, representing Y, acknowledged his client's "deplorable" behaviour but highlighted the "substantial additional punishment" he had already endured due to public outcry.