PM refers Hampshire rape sentences to Court of Appeal review

The prime minister referred the Hampshire rape sentences to the Court of Appeal after three teenage boys, two aged 15 and one aged 14, were convicted over attacks on two girls in Fordingbridge.

Southampton Crown Court heard the rapes took place in separate incidents on 26 November 2024 and 17 January 2025. Two of the defendants avoided immediate custody and received youth rehabilitation orders instead, including one 15-year-old who was given a three-year order with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for the rape of each girl and for two indecent image charges. Another teenager received an 18-month youth rehabilitation order for rape-related offences and indecent images.

The judge, Nicholas Rowland, said he wanted to avoid “criminalising these children unnecessarily.” The court also heard evidence that one boy had ADHD and long-standing anxiety, while another had ADHD and was described as having an IQ in the bottom 1% of contemporaries. Those details have sharpened the central conflict in the case: how far the justice system should weigh youth, neurodevelopmental issues and the prospect of rehabilitation against the scale of sexual violence and the harm done to two victims.

Keir Starmer called the case “appalling” and “distressing,” and praised the girls’ “extraordinary bravery and strength.” Hampshire’s police and crime commissioner said the punishment was “far too lenient.” The referral is being made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which allows certain sentences to be reviewed and potentially taken to the Court of Appeal.

That process cannot erase the convictions, but it can change the punishment. If appeal judges decide the orders imposed by Southampton Crown Court were unduly lenient, they can replace them with tougher sentences. The review therefore goes to the heart of a wider public argument: whether teenage defendants in grave sexual offences should be treated primarily through a lens of welfare and rehabilitation, or whether the severity of the harm demands a stronger message of deterrence and punishment.

For the two girls at the centre of the case, the appeal offers the possibility that the original sentencing will not be the final word. For the justice system, it is another test of where childhood ends and accountability begins.