Two boys who avoided jail in Fordingbridge rape case 'crossed custody threshold,' judge's sentence remarks reveal
The judge in the case sais he was "satisfied that a YRO" for each of the defendants would "provide the best prospect of rehabilitation" and reduce the of risk of further offending
The crimes of two teenage boys who avoided prison for the rape of two girls did cross the custody threshold, the judge said in his sentence remarks released today.
Listen to this article
Three boys, two aged 15 and one aged 14, were given youth rehabilitation orders (YRO) after two girls, 14 and 15, were raped in two separate incidents in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in November 2024 and January 2025.
The case sparked national outrage and the sentences are being sent to the Court of Appeal after a review under the Unduly Lenient Sentences (ULS) scheme.
The full transcript of the sentencing remarks of the two 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old by Judge Rowland has now been released, which revealed the Youth Justice Services assessed them as "medium risk” of reoffending but "high risk of serious harm" to young females.
However, they were spared immediate custody.
The first 15-year-old defendant was handed a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS) for the rape of each of the two girls, who were aged 14 and 15 at the time, and two indecent images charges.
The second 15-year-old was given the same sentence for three charges of rape against each of the two victims and four counts of taking indecent images in relation to filming of the incidents.
A third boy, who is 14 and was 13 at the time, was given a YRO for 18 months for two charges of rape in the second incident by encouraging the second defendant and an offence of indecent images.
Judge Rowland said in his remarks: "I have come to the conclusion offences of which (the two 15-year-olds) were convicted crossed the custody threshold, however, in light of the guidelines relating to children I am not bound to impose immediate custody.
"I must consider the respective ages of the children at the time when these offences were committed. As was made clear in that decision, it is not just the chronological age I am concerned with, but emotional and developmental age.
"I need to consider the ages of these children and proceed on the basis that custody is a last resort."
Judge Rowland said the first defendant had been diagnosed with ADHD and "long-standing anxiety", while the second had an IQ in the bottom 1%, had ADHD with "extreme neurodevelopmental impairment", and presented “more like an eight-year-old".
Explaining his decision to not sentence them to custody, he said: "I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, understand the effects of their behaviour, on the two girls and their families, and promote the boy's reintegration into society.
"Are there matters which may diminish the culpability of these children? They were immature and may not understand risk taking behaviour.
"Were they acting impulsively? Peer pressure is an important factor. Children are likely to benefit from the opportunity to address their behaviour, learn from their mistakes and to be receptive to change.
"Offending by children can often be a phase, the effect of punishment is likely to be felt more heavily by a child."
He added that he was "satisfied that a YRO" for each of the defendants would "provide the best prospect of rehabilitation and therefore the reduction of risk of further offending".
Sir Keir Starmer announced the "distressing” case would be referred following a public outcry, followed by the Attorney General Lord Hermer who said there was "an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country".
The PM said: "The girls at the heart of this case have shown extraordinary bravery and strength in heinous circumstances. This is an appalling case and it is right that law officers are urgently reviewing the sentences."
Following the sentencing, shadow safeguarding minister MP Alicia Kearns told LBC that the defendants should be named and shamed.
Speaking to Shelagh Fogarty, Ms Kearns said: "The entire country has seen this judgement and are horrified by it.
"[The judge] used the phrase, none of you need to go to prison. He talked about how they were very young, how they had limited understanding, consent.
"If we are really saying that a 14-year-old or a 50-year-old are not equally culpable when they do something that premeditated, then I have serious questions about how anyone can have confidence in the criminal justice system."
Ms Kearns added: "I think their crimes are so heinous, but I think there is a public interest point where perhaps they should be named.
"How do you know if you live in the Southampton area and your daughter starts a relationship with a young boy of that age, that he's not one of those who committed this heinous crime.
"He was allowed to walk free. If I'm honest, I think he should be named. They should all be named."