Court Told Judge Was Wrong to Spare Boys Custody in Rape Case
A judge's decision to spare three boys custody after convictions for rape triggered a public outcry in May. This week, the Court of Appeal is deciding whether that decision was legally wrong.
The Court of Appeal heard Wednesday that the sentencing judge in the Fordingbridge case was "wrong" to conclude that community sentences could be justified for any of the three offenders, referred to as X, Y, and Z to protect their identities given their age.
What the Attorney General's Office Argued
Tom Little KC, representing Attorney General Lord Hermer, told the court the offending was so serious that "the only appropriate sentence" was detention. He said the sentencing judge's remarks gave only limited reference to "the marked impact of this offending on both victims and the clear evidence of extensive harm suffered as a result."
The case involves two girls, then aged 14 and 15, who were separately attacked in Fordingbridge in November 2024 and January 2025. The three boys, aged 13 to 15 at the time, were convicted of 10 rape offenses between them.
📰 Read Also: Fordingbridge Victim Speaks Before Sentence Review
How the Original Sentence Was Reached
Judge Nicholas Rowland gave two of the boys three-year youth rehabilitation orders with 180 days of intensive supervision, and the third a shorter 18-month order. All three received curfews and 10-year restraining orders barring contact with their victims.
Explaining his decision at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Rowland said he wanted to avoid "criminalising" the boys unnecessarily and that sentencing guidelines required him to treat custody as "a last resort." He also credited the boys with time already served under pre-trial curfews.
📰 Read Also: 520 Mothers, Babies Harmed in NHS Maternity Scandal
Lawyers for the Boys Pushed Back
Defense barristers argued the original sentencing was correctly applied. Clare Wade KC, representing one of the boys, told the court the sentences "broadly provide the best opportunity for the child offenders to learn and develop" while protecting women and girls from future offending.
Ed Henry KC, representing another defendant, said his client had a "very, very simplistic understanding of the word consent" and was in the bottom one percent of IQs for his age. He argued that inaccurate media coverage had made the boy a "pariah" beyond what his conduct warranted.
📰 Read Also: Domestic Killers Face Longer Jail Terms
A Press Release Error Draws Judicial Criticism
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr separately criticized the Crown Prosecution Service for issuing an inaccurate press release suggesting the offenses involved a knife — a detail the sentencing judge had explicitly found not to be true. Baroness Carr said it was "troubling" that the release wasn't corrected for weeks despite significant media coverage, and said the court is "considering what our options are."
One of the victims previously described the original sentences as feeling "like a rock straight to my face" in comments to the BBC. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has called the case "alarming," saying rape is among the worst offenses a person can survive.
What Happens Next
The boys are expected to appear via videolink Thursday to hear the Court of Appeal's ruling directly. Baroness Carr said the judges "will want to address" them personally to explain the decision, regardless of outcome.
TL;DR
- The Court of Appeal heard arguments that a judge wrongly gave community sentences to three boys convicted of rape
- The Attorney General's office argued detention was the only appropriate sentence given the offenses
- Defense lawyers argued the original sentencing judge applied the correct legal framework
- The Lady Chief Justice separately criticized a CPS press release containing inaccurate details
- A ruling is expected Thursday, with the boys set to appear via videolink
Read More
You might also like
Politics & World News Editor
James Mitchell has covered US and UK politics for over a decade, with a focus on elections, foreign policy, and Capitol Hill. He breaks down complex political stories into clear, fast analysis.
