The Court of Appeal is reviewing the sentences of three teenagers who were spared prison for a series of rapes and indecent image offenses against vulnerable girls. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has referred the case to the court, arguing that the original sentences were unduly lenient.
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, told the court that detention was the only appropriate sentence for the three boys, identified as X and Y, both 15, and Z, 14. They received non-custodial sentences in May for a combined 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offenses. The two older boys were involved in both attacks, while the youngest encouraged the rape of the second victim. The attacks occurred in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, over a few months in 2024 and 2025.
Judge Nicholas Rowland had stated at Southampton Crown Court that the offenses of the two 15-year-olds crossed the custody threshold but opted against jail time to avoid unnecessarily criminalizing the youths. However, Mr. Little argued that the judge failed to properly consider the psychological impact on the victims, their vulnerability, and the extensive harm they suffered. He asserted that the sentencing approach was fundamentally flawed, demonstrating a failure to grasp the seriousness of the offending.
"The judge failed to stand back and properly consider and reflect upon the true seriousness of the case because he did not properly regard the case as being as serious as it was," Mr. Little submitted. He contended that community sentences could not be justified given the nature of the offenses, regardless of the offenders' ages or any intellectual limitations. Written submissions stated that the extent and nature of the offending were so serious that detention was the only appropriate sentence for all three.
Mr. Little acknowledged that national concern was expressed following the initial sentencing. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the case as "distressing," and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called it a "sickening case of soft justice."
Lawyers representing the teenagers are opposing the bid for increased sentences. Edward Henry KC, for Y, suggested that public outcry was partly fueled by an error in a Crown Prosecution Service press release that incorrectly stated a knife was used. He noted that Y, whose IQ is in the bottom 1%, has become a pariah in his community, with his family advised to leave their home.
Clare Wade KC, representing X, argued that Judge Rowland correctly approached the sentencing exercise and that her client has potential for rehabilitation and would be vulnerable in a custodial setting.
One of the victims stated in a written submission that the attack left her "harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same" and that the trial "broke something inside me." She described carrying the experience daily and being unable to move on.
The appeal hearing is before the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Ms. Justice Norton. They will assess whether the original sentences fall outside the range of sentences considered reasonably appropriate based on the evidence presented to the sentencing judge. If deemed unduly lenient, the original sentences will be quashed and replaced with new ones. The teenagers have been asked to attend Southampton Crown Court for the announcement of the appeal decision.