Judge who let rapist boys walk free in case which shocked the nation 'failed to grapple seriousness' of attacks on 'vulnerable' girls, Court of Appeal hears

By RYAN HOOPER, CRIME CORRESPONDENT Published: 12:58, 1 July 2026 | Updated: 13:07, 1 July 2026 Three rapist boys spared prison in a case which shocked the nation should have been jailed, the Court of Appeal was told today. Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, said detention was the 'only appropriate sentence' for the trio after a string of attacks on 'vulnerable' girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, a couple of months apart in 2024 and 2025. Two boys aged 15, known as X and Y, and another aged 14, known as Z, were given non-custodial sentences in May for a combined 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences relating to two victims. The two older boys were involved in both attacks, while the 14-year-old encouraged the rape of the second victim. Sentencing them at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Rowland said the offences of the two 15-year-olds 'crossed the custody threshold', but he should 'avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily'. The sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal as 'unduly lenient' by Attorney General Lord Hermer within one working day following public outcry. Setting out the position for harsher sentences, Mr Little told the Court of Appeal today the original judge failed to properly consider the psychological impact on the young victims, the girls' vulnerability, and he appeared not to properly consider the 'clear evidence of extensive harm' suffered by the girls. The boys, who have not attended the hearing in London, are opposing the bids to have their sentences increased. The scene of a teenage rape case in 2024, which attracted accusations of soft justice after the young perpetrators were spared jail Addressing the hearing, Mr Little said parts of Judge Rowland's approach to sentencing were 'fundamentally flawed' and that he demonstrated a 'failure to grapple the seriousness of the offending'. He said it was accepted that Judge Rowland tried to apply the guidelines for sentencing children and young people, but the guidelines did not prevent him from imposing detention in an appropriate case. 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 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.' In written submissions, he said: 'In summary it is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for X, Y and Z was detention.' Mr Little continued: '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 said 'no sentence other than detention was appropriate' for the trio. And he acknowledged there was 'national concern expressed' the day after the sentencing hearing. A hearing to potentially increase the sentences handed to three rapist boys is happening at the Court of Appeal  Responding at the time, the Attorney General Lord Hermer said there was 'an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country' while the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the case as 'distressing'. Sentencing, the judge said: 'None of you have been in any big trouble before. You have all done very well with the restrictions put in place throughout the trial.' But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said afterwards: 'These despicable youths should have been jailed. This is a sickening case of soft justice.' Edward Henry KC, for Y, told the Court of Appeal the strength of public outcry was in part down to an error in a Crown Prosecution Service press release which wrongly stated a knife was used during one of the rapes. He said Y, whose IQ is in the bottom 1% of children his age, had 'behaved deplorably and disgracefully', but that 'the opprobrium, the sheer force of hatred on social media' had made his punishment worse. Y was now considered a 'pariah' in his community, Mr Henry said, and his family had been advised to leave their home. Clare Wade KC, for X, said that Judge Rowland 'approached the sentencing exercise correctly'. Her client, she said, had the potential for rehabilitation, and that he would be 'vulnerable' in a custodial setting. In a statement this week, one of the victims said the attack on her  left her 'harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same'. She said the trial of her attackers 'broke something inside me'. She said: '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 two-day appeal hearing is before the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton. The sentence can be deemed 'unduly lenient' only if it falls outside the range of sentences considered reasonably appropriate for the sentencing judge to hand down, based on the facts and evidence of the case. The judges cannot examine or change the offences for which the defendant was sentenced and cannot look at any new evidence related to the case. They can only assess whether the sentence was unduly lenient based on the evidence before the sentencing judge at the time. If the sentence is deemed unduly lenient, the original sentence is quashed, and a new sentence is substituted. The trio - who cannot be identified because they are under 18 - have been asked to attend Southampton Crown Court tomorrow afternoon. No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.