Three teenage boys involved in the rape of two girls in Fordingbridge were identified as posing a “high risk of serious harm” to young females, as stated by the judge during the sentencing. Judge Nicholas Rowland determined that their actions warranted a custodial sentence during the trial at Southampton Crown Court.

The sentencing of the three teenagers, all of whom avoided jail time, is under review by the Court of Appeal following an assessment under the Unduly Lenient Sentences (ULS) scheme. The prosecution revealed that the assaults, which took place in 2024 and 2025, were captured on phones and depicted the boys laughing and goading each other.

The decision to review the case came after widespread public outcry, with Attorney General Lord Hermer highlighting concerns about “an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country.” The sentencing remarks by Judge Rowland for the two 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old have now been made public.

One of the 15-year-old defendants received a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS) for each rape offense against the two girls, aged 14 and 15 at the time, as well as two charges related to indecent images.

Similarly, the second 15-year-old was handed the same sentence for multiple rape charges against the victims and additional counts of taking indecent images during the incidents.

The third boy, aged 14 at the time of the offenses, was given an 18-month YRO for his involvement in the second incident, which included encouraging the second defendant and an indecent images offense.

Judge Rowland noted that while the two 15-year-olds were considered a “medium risk” of reoffending but a “high risk of serious harm” to young females, their individual circumstances had to be taken into account. He highlighted the first defendant’s ADHD diagnosis and anxiety issues, as well as the second defendant’s low IQ and neurodevelopmental challenges.

The judge emphasized that the boys had already served significant periods under supervision, with the first defendant effectively spending the equivalent of an 18-month sentence in curfew and local authority detention, and the second defendant receiving a similar 17-month equivalent sentence.

In contrast, the younger defendant, with intellectual challenges and emotional immaturity, was deemed to have a low risk of reoffending and was not considered to have crossed the custody threshold.

Judge Rowland justified his decision not to impose custody by emphasizing the importance of avoiding unnecessary criminalization of children, encouraging accountability for their actions, and facilitating their reintegration into society. He highlighted the potential for children to learn from mistakes, address their behavior, and benefit from rehabilitation through non-custodial measures.