Court of Appeal Orders Teenage Rapists Into Detention After Finding Original Sentences Too Lenient

Two teenage boys convicted of multiple rapes against two girls have been ordered into detention after the Court of Appeal ruled that their original sentences were unduly lenient.

The case attracted national attention in May when three boys avoided immediate custody after being sentenced at Southampton Crown Court for serious sexual offences committed in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, during 2024 and 2025.

Two of the boys, known only as X and Y because of their ages, were 13 and 14 at the time of the offences. Between them, they were convicted of 11 rape offences involving two girls. A third boy, referred to as Z, was convicted of encouraging one of the attacks.

At the original sentencing hearing, all three received Youth Rehabilitation Orders, a community-based sentence for young offenders. The decision prompted widespread criticism and led Attorney General Lord Hermer to refer the case to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

On Thursday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the sentences imposed on X and Y were too lenient and ordered both boys to serve four years in detention. The sentence imposed on Z was left unchanged.

Delivering the court’s judgment, Baroness Carr told the two boys that detention was unavoidable given the seriousness of their offending.

Addressing the teenagers, she said: “What you did was so bad that we have no other choice.”

The court noted that had the offenders been adults, they would likely have received custodial sentences substantially longer than ten years.

Baroness Carr said the repeated nature of the offending against two separate victims made a significant period of detention unavoidable. She described the offences as “extremely serious” and said the court had concluded that the original sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to key aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that Judge Nicholas Rowland had erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences. According to the judgment, insufficient consideration had been given to the vulnerability of the victims and the humiliation and degradation they suffered.

During the original sentencing hearing, Judge Rowland accepted that the offences crossed the custody threshold but said he wished to avoid “criminalising” the children unnecessarily. He also took account of personal factors affecting the boys, including ADHD, anxiety and developmental difficulties.

However, lawyers acting on behalf of the Attorney General argued during the appeal that the original sentencing approach did not properly reflect either the scale of the offending or the harm caused to the victims.

Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, told the court that it was difficult to understand how non-custodial sentences had been imposed given the number of rape convictions and the seriousness of the offences.

The case has also drawn attention because of the impact on the two girls involved.

In a statement released before the appeal hearing, one victim said the attacks had left her feeling permanently changed and that she carried the effects of what happened every day. She said the court process had compounded her trauma and questioned why those responsible had not originally received custodial sentences.

The second victim also spoke publicly of her shock at the original outcome, while family members said they were devastated that the offenders had initially avoided detention.

The case prompted intervention from senior public figures, including Keir Starmer, who described the offences as appalling and supported a review of the sentences.

Calls for the sentences to be reconsidered were also backed by Rachel de Souza and Donna Jones.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling means X and Y will now serve four-year detention terms within the youth justice system, replacing the community-based sentences originally imposed by the Crown Court.