Judge who spared teen rapists failed to 'properly consider' seriousness of offending

A judge who spared teenage rapists failed to "properly consider" the seriousness of their offending, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Two boys aged 15, known as X and Y, and another aged 14, known as Z, were sentenced on May 21 for a combined 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences related to two victims, who were separately attacked in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025.

The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr is one of three judges who heard a bid by Attorney General Lord Hermer today to have the non-custodial sentences of the teenage boys increased, with a judgment due to be handed down tomorrow.

However, the teenagers were spared jail time and instead received community-based sentences for young offenders.

TRENDING

Stories

Videos

Your Say

During the sentencing hearing in May at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Rowland said the offences committed by the two 15-year-olds "crossed the custody threshold."

However, he should "avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily", adding custodial sentence for children is a "last resort".

The ruling was met with outrage, with Prime Minister and former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer describing it as "an appalling case".

The case is being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London before the lady chief justice Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lord Justice Edis and Mrs Justice Norton.

At court today, Tom Little, for the Attorney General said Judge Rowland had a "difficult sentencing exercise" because of the ages of the offenders and the victims.

He added: "We accept … that the judge did try to apply the relevant principles, but our submission is he misapplied them along the way, the cumulative effect of which was to lead to unduly lenient sentences.

"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, which the judge does not properly address in any way in...his sentencing remarks, the underlying seriousness of the offending and the harm sustained.

"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."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Teenage rapists who filmed attacks on girls, 14 and 15, fined just £26 each
• One of three teenage rapists who filmed attack on girls had 'history' of sex offences
• Group of boys convicted for raping girls, 14 and 15, in 'deeply concerning' attacks

Following the sentencing, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) issued a press release that suggested the boys had been convicted of raping the second victim at knifepoint, after forcing her at knifepoint to leave her phone and an AirTag in a shop so their movements could not be tracked.

But in his sentencing remarks at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Rowland said: "(The victim) alleged she was forced at knife point to go with the boys at the outset and then participate in non-consensual sexual activity.

"I am sure this did not happen. I am sure that even if a knife was present, it formed no part in any alleged kidnap and then forced sexual activity."

Judge Rowland also said that the girl left her phone and AirTag in the shop "by choice, not as a result of pressure from a boy".

During the hearing on Wednesday, Baroness Carr said the press release contained "fundamental errors”, with Mr Little saying it was not corrected until June 10.

Baroness Carr asked: "I would like to know what steps are being taken to prevent things like this ever happening again.”

Mr Little replied that the corrections “should have happened immediately" and that the incident "has been investigated in full", adding: "It has been taken up at the highest level."

Baroness Carr asked: "How could it possibly have taken until June 10?", to which Mr Little replied: "Nobody pointed it out until then."

The press release, which is still available online but remains dated May 21, now has a notice at the top that it has been corrected and includes Judge Rowland’s findings.

But Baroness Carr said she had “deep concern” about the release, which she said was “so clearly incorrect”.

She continued that it was “troubling” that the release was not corrected for several days despite the “inevitable consequences” given the “very significant media reporting” of the case.

Baroness Carr said: “No one appears to have stepped in to correct basic facts.”

Edward Henry KC, for Y, said that the public outcry following the sentences was "in substantial part generated" by reporting of details in the press release, even though the knifepoint rape claim was "categorically wrong".

He said: "Public confidence must be founded upon a sound and accurate appreciation of the learned judge’s actual findings.

"It cannot be founded on a public outcry on the back of inaccurate reporting, on the back of the CPS press release."

Mr Henry continued that the public outcry had made Y a "pariah" and had caused "substantial additional punishment that he is ill-equipped to bear".

He said: "The sheer force of hatred on social media and the like has gravely exacerbated his punishment since May 22."

Mr Henry also said that he had emailed Lord Hermer’s staff about the inaccuracies in the press release on May 28, but received no response.

Tracy Ayling KC, for Z, said that the inaccuracies were “particularly unfortunate".

She said: "That inaccurate 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 his home, and political comment."

A CPS spokesman said: "Following the trial, the CPS issued a press release which reflected the prosecution case at trial, but did not accurately reflect the judge’s findings in relation to the offending. We later amended the release to correct this and regret the error.

"It is essential that our public communications accurately reflect court findings. We have reviewed the circumstances of this case and we will identify lessons for the future."

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter