A judge who spared three teenage boys prison for raping and filming sex attacks on two girls failed to take the crimes seriously enough, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Two boys aged 15 and another aged 14 were given non-custodial sentences in May for a combined 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences related to teenage girls, who were separately attacked in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025.
The two older boys were involved in both attacks, while the 14-year-old encouraged the rape of the second victim.
Their sentences sparked a public outcry and were referred to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient” by Attorney General Lord Hermer days later.
At a hearing on Wednesday, Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, argued that the “only appropriate sentence” for the three boys – known as X, Y and Z for legal reasons – was detention.
In written submissions to the panel of judges, he said: “Had the judge properly assessed the seriousness of the offences he could only reasonably have concluded that lengthy sentences of detention were required for both X and Y and that a sentence of detention was required for Z.”
He acknowledged that Judge Nicholas Rowland, who sentenced the boys at Southampton Crown Court in May, oversaw a difficult sentencing exercise for the child offenders. But he argued his assessment of harm and culpability was “fundamentally flawed”.
He continued: “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Mr Little also accused the judge of adopting a “significantly outdated” approach. The barrister said that the judge correctly said that previous consensual sexual activity with victims was not mitigation, but appeared to wrongly find that the offenders had reduced culpability.
Mr Little continued: “They have still been convicted by a jury of rape offences including the jury being sure that consent was not given and that they did not have a reasonable belief in consent.
“This appears to represent a significantly outdated approach to the sentencing of sexual offences by the judge.”
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Rowland noted that the second defendant, known as Y, had an IQ in the bottom 1 per cent, ADHD and could not cope with ordinary schooling. His mother had described him as being more like an eight-year-old boy.
Judge Rowland said he was “quite sure” that Y’s culpability “was reduced as result of his profound impairments”.
The third and youngest boy, Z, was also found by a psychologist to have “very low intellectual capacity”, the sentencing judge remarked.
However, Mr Little said the sentences imposed on X and Y were unduly lenient, adding: “A community sentence could simply not be justified for each of these child offenders despite their ages and any intellectual limitations.”
One of the 15-year-old boys was given a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for raping and taking indecent images of both victims.
The second boy received the same sentence for three charges of rape against each of the two victims and four counts of taking indecent images by filming the incidents.
The 14-year-old was given an 18-month YRO for two charges of rape related to the latter victim after encouraging the second defendant, and for an offence of indecent images.
In a statement ahead of the appeal hearing, the family of one of the victims, who is using the pseudonym Jazmine to protect her anonymity, said they had “been forced to come before one of the highest courts in the country simply to ask that the seriousness of Jazmine being raped by two teenage boys is properly recognised”.
“Today’s hearing is about far more than Jazmine’s case,” they added. “It is about every survivor watching to see how the criminal justice system responds to the devastating harm caused by rape.”
Jazmine said the trial at Southampton Crown Court was “traumatising” and she will never be the same.
“I cannot just move on,” she said. “The trial was horrific. It was not just difficult; it was traumatising. It made me relive what happened again and again. The trial lasted more than five-and-a-half weeks, and I had to go through giving evidence.”
She continued: “It was implied that I wanted it. It was implied that I was experienced in what I was doing. It was implied that I had chosen it or taken part in it.
“I cannot explain how humiliating and painful that was. I was 15 years old. I am a child who has been raped. I felt like I was being treated like I had done something wrong.”
Clare Wade KC, for X, argued the sentencing judge acted “correctly” and a youth rehabilitation order provides the “most effective way of protecting women and girls in future by preventing future offending”.
She said he had already served the equivalent of an 18-month sentence under curfew while awaiting trial, adding: “He would be vulnerable in a custodial setting; he would be detained with criminal peers and fall under the influence of far more entrenched offenders.”
Edward Henry KC, for child Y, said the teenager – who was 14 at the time of the attacks – had been made a “pariah” as a result of the media attention on the case.
He told the court the public was “substantially misinformed” by an error included in the Crown Prosecution Service’s press release on the case, which wrongly claimed one of the attacks had taken place at knife point.
“Y behaved deplorably and disgracefully and he of course deserves to be punished,” he said. “But the public outcry and the opprobrium and the sheer force of hatred on social media and the like has gravely exacerbated his punishment since 22 May.”
He said his family have been advised to leave home, adding: “The super stigma in his community has made child Y a pariah.
“He suffers nocturnal panic attacks in which he feels like he’s dying. He’s 15 years old with an IQ in the first percentile.”
He said the boy has a “constellation” of neuro-developmental issues which “grossly compromises” his ability to reason and “markedly reduces his culpability”. He noted child Y had already served the equivalent of a 17-month sentence ahead of trial, including 20 days in youth detention accommodation, and the rest on curfew.
Tracy Ayling KC, for child Z, who was 13 at the time of the offending, said custody should be a “last resort”. She said he had been too scared to leave home after the inaccurate CPS press release was issued.
“The publicity in relation to this case has been particularly unfortunate,” she added. “That inaccurate press press release led to a judge being vilified. A petition calling for his resignation as a judge was instigated.
“A very young defendant being terrified to leave home and political comment and in the time honoured tradition of the bar, none of us being to do anything to put the inaccuracies right.”
The hearing, before the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton, is set to conclude on Thursday.
