The Court of Appeal has heard that detention was the only appropriate sentence for three teenage boys who avoided custody after being convicted of raping two girls. The boys, aged 14 and 15, received non-custodial sentences in May despite being found guilty of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences involving two victims.
Details of the Offences
The girls were separately assaulted in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025. Two 15-year-old boys, referred to as X and Y, participated in both assaults, while a 14-year-old, referred to as Z, encouraged the rape of the second victim. One of the attacks occurred in an underpass beside the River Avon.
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, argued that the sentencing judge's approach was fundamentally flawed. He stated: "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."
Sentences Imposed
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 received the same sentence for three charges of rape against each victim 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 second victim, after encouraging Y, and for an indecent image offence.
Judge Rowland, who presided over the 29-day trial, noted at sentencing that while X and Y were assessed as "medium risk" of reoffending but "high risk of serious harm" to young females, he was required to consider their backgrounds. X had been diagnosed with ADHD and long-standing anxiety, while Y had an IQ in the bottom 1%, ADHD with extreme neurodevelopmental impairment, and presented "more like an eight-year-old."
Appeal Arguments
Mr Little acknowledged that Z was in a different position due to his younger age and involvement in only one of the rapes, but maintained that his offending was "sustained." He submitted: "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." He also argued that the 10-year restraining order barring the boys from contacting the victims should have been indefinite, noting that this had caused the victims "very significant concern."
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, told the court that his client "behaved deplorably and disgracefully and deserves to be punished," but had been rendered a "pariah" amid public outcry, inflicting "substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear." He argued that the Attorney General had not engaged with evidence of Y's comorbid conditions that dramatically reduced his culpability.
Victim Impact
In a statement issued before the hearing, one of the victims said the attack "has left me harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same" and that the trial "broke something inside me." She added: "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.
