Court of Appeal Jails Teenage Boys for Rape After Unduly Lenient Sentence Review

Two teenage boys convicted of raping two girls in Hampshire have had their original non-custodial sentences quashed and replaced with four-year periods of detention, following a ruling by the Court of Appeal earlier today.

The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, presiding alongside Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Norton, determined that the initial sentences handed down to the two primary offenders—referred to as X and Y for legal reasons—were "unduly lenient" and that the original sentencing judge had "erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences."

The decision concludes a highly scrutinized legal review that began after Judge Nicholas Rowland of the Southampton Crown Court handed X and Y three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YRO) in May.

A third boy, referred to as Z, who filmed portions of the second attack, retains his original 18-month YRO, with the Court of Appeal opting not to alter his non-custodial sentence.

Read more: Brighton Knifepoint Rapist Caught in Quadrophenia Alley Jailed for 13 Years

The defendants, who possess lifelong anonymity due to their ages, watched today's proceedings via a live video link from a private room inside Southampton Crown Court. Reports indicate the boys were dressed in white shirts, with X and Z wearing black ties.

The offences in question involve the rapes of two teenage girls—who also retain strict legal anonymity—in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. The Crown detailed that the first incident occurred in November 2024, followed by a second incident in January 2025. X and Y were 14 years old at the time of the offences, while Z was 13 during the January attack.

The Private Address to the Defendants

Before delivering the formal, televised judgment, Baroness Carr elected to address the three teenage defendants directly in a private, unbroadcast session, explaining the panel's decision in simplified terms.

Addressing X and Y directly regarding the review of their sentences, Baroness Carr informed the pair that the panel had "thought very hard" about their respective cases.

Read more: Errol Grant Jailed Six Years After Sawn-Off Shotgun Found in Great Barr

Delivering the decision to impose custodial terms, the Lady Chief Justice stated: "Both of you do need to go into detention." She explicitly noted that this was because the court concluded "what you did was so bad" that the judiciary had no other choice but to intervene.

However, Baroness Carr clarified the reality of their incarceration terms. "Four years is a very long time," she told X and Y:

"You will not stay in detention for all of that time."

She confirmed that the time the teenagers had already spent on curfew prior to their trial would be formally credited toward their four-year sentences.

Furthermore, Baroness Carr outlined severe lifelong conditions attached to the new sentences.

Read more: Teenager Obsessed With Southport Killer and Mass Murder Jailed for Bomb Plot Threats

Both X and Y will be required to follow police instructions for the remainder of their lives. The original 10-year restraining orders prohibiting any contact with the victims, C1 and C2, have been quashed and formally replaced by "indefinite restraining orders."

Turning her attention to Z, the youngest of the three defendants, Baroness Carr reminded him that what he did "was also very bad."

However, she explained that the panel had thought "very carefully" about his specific circumstances before deciding to uphold Judge Rowland's original sentence:

"We have decided because you were very young... we do not need to change your sentence," she confirmed.

The Televised Judgment and Legal Reasoning

Following a brief recess, Baroness Carr delivered a "short oral summary" of the judgment on camera, outlining the stringent legal reasoning behind the intervention.

She characterized the proceedings as a "difficult" sentencing exercise, necessitated by the volume and extreme seriousness of the offences, juxtaposed against the young ages and vulnerabilities of the "very young children" involved as both defendants and victims.

While acknowledging that Judge Rowland had carried out a "careful sentencing exercise" during the original trial, the Court of Appeal firmly established that his resulting non-custodial sentences for X and Y were:

"Unduly lenient”

Baroness Carr noted that while each of the two incidents was "extremely serious" in its own right, the fact that the behaviour was repeated in the second incident served as the "crucial feature" of the appellate review.

The court conducted a deeper analysis of the statutory sentencing guidelines. The Lady Chief Justice stated that the panel concluded Judge Rowland had:

"Erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences,"

Further noting that he had failed to:

"Take sufficiently into account the age and vulnerabilities of the complainants"

As well as the resulting psychological impact on the victims, which the Court of Appeal considered to be "severe."

While Judge Rowland was legally entitled to reach his initial conclusion, Baroness Carr stated that the specific aggravating factors of the case—explicitly citing the "humiliation and degradation" inflicted upon the victims through the crime itself and the subsequent filming, alongside the fact there were two distinct offences—meant the custody threshold had undeniably been crossed.

Stressing the gravity of the crimes, Baroness Carr stated that X and Y had participated in:

"Multiple rapes carried out on others."

She added a stark counterfactual to underline the court's position: had X and Y been tried and sentenced as adults, they would have likely faced custodial sentences "substantially in excess of 10 years."

After applying standard judicial considerations for mitigating factors, the Court of Appeal quashed the previous sentences and officially sentenced X and Y to four years' detention for each count of rape, with the terms ordered "to run concurrently."

Z’s lack of involvement in the first incident, combined with his younger age, satisfied the panel that his original 18-month YRO, which includes a doorstep curfew and a 10-year restraining order, did not meet the threshold of being unduly lenient.

Judicial Criticism of the CPS and Media

Before concluding the hearing at approximately 15:02 BST, Baroness Carr took the highly unusual step of dedicating a portion of her televised remarks to issues concerning the "administration of justice," issuing a scathing rebuke of how the case had been handled outside the courtroom.

The Lady Chief Justice expressed deep concern regarding "inaccurate reporting" on the case, forcefully condemning "misinformed and inappropriate commentary" that had been circulated by both members of parliament and the national media.

She reserved her sharpest criticism for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Baroness Carr stated that a press release issued by the CPS was not a "fair representation" of the facts of the case.

She noted that the release included erroneous details that "portrayed the offending as even more serious than it already was," specifically singling out a false claim circulated by the CPS that one of the victims had been raped at knife-point.

The Lady Chief Justice noted with clear disapproval that it took the Crown Prosecution Service almost three weeks to formally correct this significant error on the public record.

With those final rebukes, the Lady Chief Justice concluded her remarks, officially closing the appeal hearing and sending defendants X and Y into immediate custody.