Three adolescent boys who avoided imprisonment after being convicted of sexually assaulting two girls will undergo a sentence review by the Court of Appeal in July.
Following the rape incidents in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, two 15-year-olds received non-custodial sentences from a judge at Southampton Crown Court. The judge’s decision aimed to prevent unnecessary criminalization of the boys.
A third boy, aged 14, was also found guilty of participating in the second assault and an offense related to indecent images.
Prior to this, Sir Keir Starmer announced that the Court of Appeal would reassess the case due to concerns about the leniency of the sentences.
The Court of Appeal will reexamine the sentences during a two-day session commencing on July 1, overseen by senior judges.
In response to the referral, Attorney General Lord Hermer highlighted the ongoing issue of violence against women and girls, praising the bravery of the two victims for coming forward.
The first 15-year-old was handed a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for each rape and indecent images offenses against the two girls, aged 14 and 15 at the time.
Similarly, the second 15-year-old received the same sentence for multiple rape charges and taking indecent images during the assaults.
The third boy, who was 14 at the time of the incidents, was given an 18-month YRO for his involvement in the second attack and an offense related to indecent images.
During sentencing, Judge Nicholas Rowland noted that the seriousness of the offenses committed by the two 15-year-olds warranted consideration of custody. He emphasized the importance of youth justice in preventing reoffending and ensuring the welfare of the children involved.
Judge Rowland took into account the emotional and developmental ages of the boys, as well as their assessed risks of reoffending and causing harm. The first defendant had ADHD and anxiety, while the second had significant cognitive and developmental challenges, resembling a much younger age mentally.
These details were disclosed in the context of the youth justice system’s objective to address offending behavior while prioritizing the well-being and rehabilitation of young offenders.
