Appeal Hearing Challenges Non-Custodial Sentences
The Court of Appeal heard on Wednesday that detention was the 'only appropriate sentence' for three teenage boys who received non-custodial sentences after being convicted of raping two girls. The Attorney General referred the sentences as 'unduly lenient' following widespread public outcry.
The three teenagers, known as X, Y, and Z, were handed youth rehabilitation orders in May despite being convicted of a combined 10 rape offences and seven indecent image offences. The two victims were separately attacked in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025.
Details of the Offences and Sentences
X and Y, both aged 15, participated in both attacks, while Z, aged 14, encouraged the rape of the second victim. X received a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for raping and taking indecent images of both victims. Y received an identical sentence for three charges of rape against each victim and four counts of taking indecent images by filming the incidents. Z was given an 18-month YRO for two charges of rape relating to the latter victim and an offence of indecent images.
At sentencing, Judge Rowland acknowledged that X and Y posed a 'high risk of serious harm' to young females but took their backgrounds into account, including X's ADHD and anxiety, and Y's IQ in the bottom 1% and 'extreme neurodevelopmental impairment'.
Attorney General's Arguments
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, argued that the sentencing judge misapplied relevant principles, leading to unduly lenient sentences. He said: 'It is difficult to understand how the judge could properly have come to the conclusion that he did, given the sheer number of rape offences... the underlying seriousness of the offending and the harm sustained.'
Little also contended that the restraining order barring the boys from contacting the victims for 10 years should have been indefinite, as the victims expressed 'very significant concern' about future contact.
Defence Responses
Clare Wade KC, representing X, maintained that Judge Rowland 'approached the sentencing exercise correctly', stating that the sentences 'broadly provide the best opportunity for the child offenders to learn and develop and provide the most effective way of protecting women and girls in future by preventing future offending'.
Edward Henry KC, for Y, argued that his client had been rendered a 'pariah' following public outcry, which inflicted 'substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear'. He claimed the Attorney General had not engaged with evidence of Y's comorbid conditions that 'dramatically reduced his culpability'.
Victim Impact Statement
In a statement released before the hearing, one victim said the attack 'has left me harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same' and that the trial 'broke something inside me'. She added: 'I feel like I am carrying what happened every day. I wake up with it, I go to school with it, I try to sit exams with it, and I go to sleep with it. It is always there. I cannot just switch it off. I cannot just move on.'
The proceedings, presided over by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Ms Justice Norton, are expected to conclude on Thursday.
