Two teenage boys initially spared jail after being convicted of raping two girls have been sentenced to youth detention by the Court of Appeal. The court on Tuesday overturned the original community sentences given to the two 15-year-olds, ruling they were unduly lenient.
The boys, identified as X and Y, were convicted of 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences involving two victims aged 14 and 15. They were originally given three-year youth rehabilitation orders by a lower court. A third, younger boy, who encouraged the rape of the second victim, received an 18-month term, which remained unchanged.
The Court of Appeal, led by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, increased the sentences for X and Y to four years in youth detention. The judges found that the original sentences failed to adequately reflect the severity of the crimes, including the fact that parts of the assaults were filmed on the boys' mobile phones.
"We have made that decision because what you both did was so bad that we have no other choice," Baroness Carr stated. "You both raped two girls on two different occasions. You were enjoying it and you were egging each other on. You made it worse by filming it, which was a horrible thing to do."
The Attorney General had referred the original sentences to the Court of Appeal, arguing they were too lenient. The prosecution contended that the trial judge had wrongly prioritized avoiding criminalizing the youths over the psychological impact on the victims and the gravity of their offenses.
During the appeal hearing, concerns were raised about a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) press release that inaccurately stated a knife was used during one of the rapes. The court criticized the CPS for the error, with Baroness Carr demanding to know what steps would be taken to prevent future inaccuracies. A CPS spokesperson acknowledged the error, stating the release did not accurately reflect the judge's findings and that lessons would be learned.
The case had previously drawn public and political outcry, with critics calling it an example of "soft justice." The decision to overturn the original sentences and impose custodial terms has been seen as a response to that public concern and a re-evaluation of the initial sentencing.