A judge’s decision to not incarcerate two teenage rapists has been escalated to the Court of Appeal, as confirmed by Keir Starmer. The Prime Minister disclosed that the attorney general, Lord Richard Hermer, has reviewed the sentences that have caused public outrage. The incidents involved two girls, aged 15 and 14, who were sexually assaulted in separate incidents in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, during November 2024 and January 2025.
In the initial assault, a 15-year-old girl was raped by two 14-year-old teenagers. The subsequent attack involved three teens, with two of them assaulting the 14-year-old victim at knifepoint while the others encouraged and recorded the abhorrent acts. Recently, two 15-year-old boys received three-year youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS), while a 14-year-old boy was handed an 18-month youth rehabilitation order.
The judge at Southampton Crown Court expressed a desire to avoid unjustly criminalizing the young offenders. However, one of the victims expressed shock and disappointment at the leniency of the sentences. Keir Starmer raised concerns about the judgment and confirmed that the case would be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
The attorney general, Lord Hermer, acknowledged the bravery of the girls in coming forward and emphasized the government’s commitment to combatting violence against women and girls. A 16-year-old victim called for a revision of the boys’ sentences, questioning the purpose of her ordeal through the legal process.
Legal expert Charlotte Proudman criticized the justice system for allegedly favoring the perpetrators over the victims, causing potential deterrence for future reporting. The sentencing was conducted by Judge Nicholas Rowland at Southampton Crown Court, who considered the offenders’ age and likelihood of reoffending.
In response to the victim’s testimony, Keir Starmer commended the courage shown by the girls and stressed the urgency of reevaluating the sentences. Former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve acknowledged the judge’s unusual decision but highlighted the juveniles’ age as a factor in the sentencing departure.
The case has sparked widespread debate and calls for a review of the judicial process.
