Sentences of boys spared custody over Hampshire rape referred to Court of Appeal, PM says

Crown Prosecution Service

The sentences of boys spared custody over the rape of two girls in Hampshire will be referred to the Court of Appeal, the prime minister has said.

Sir Keir Starmer said: “There are questions about the sentence. The attorney general has power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal if they thought the sentence is too lenient”. He added that power had been “now exercised” which was “clearly the right outcome”.

Two girls, then aged 15 and 14, were raped in separate incidents in Fordingbridge in November 2024 and January 2025, by two 14-year-olds. Another boy, then 13, was also convicted for his involvement in the second attack.

The attorney general, Lord Hemer said government would not stand by while there was what he called “an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country”.

The teenagers were given youth rehabilitation orders (YRO) and walked out of court with 10 rape convictions between them.

Asked about the case during a visit to East Sussex on Monday, the prime minister said: “I think it’s a really distressing case. I think it’s distressing for everybody to see, to hear about.”

He praised the “courage” of the victims but said he found the case “distressing as a politician” and “as a father”.

Attorney General Lord Hermer said: “There has understandably been a huge amount of public interest and concern at this horrific case.

“I directed my officials to work urgently to allow me to consider this decision swiftly, and to begin to bring closure to the victims and their families.

“It is clear to me from their powerful personal statements that these girls have displayed immense bravery in coming forward.

“There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country, and this government will not hesitate in taking action to ensure all women and girls feel safe and have confidence in the justice system.”

One of the victims told the BBC that the judge’s decision to spare them jail sentences was like a “rock straight in my face”.

The girl, who spoke anonymously alongside her family, said the judge’s decision “almost made it seem as if what the boys did was not OK, but it was OK in the eyes of the law because they were still children”.

French rape survivor Gisèle Pelicot told the BBC she was “deeply shocked” by the sentences and said she “saluted the strength” and courage of one of the young girls for speaking out after the attack.

Speaking to the BBC after headlining this year’s Hay Festival – an arts and literary festival in Wales – Pelicot told BBC Breakfast she was “deeply shocked that these individuals were in fact able to gain their freedom again when in fact the victims are suffering so hard they will never be able to heal”.

The boys, who cannot be named because they are children, had denied the charges but were found guilty in March after a trial at Southampton Crown Court.

Explaining his sentencing decision on Thursday, Judge Nicholas Rowland said he would avoid criminalising the very young boys.

The judge stressed the seriousness of the crimes and said the filming of the assaults made them even more serious.

The first girl was 15 when she was raped three times in an underpass by the River Avon in Fordingbridge.

The second girl was 14 when she met the boys at Fordingbridge Recreation Ground and was raped repeatedly in a nearby field.

The boys filmed the attacks on their phones and shared some of the footage online.

Crown Prosecution Service

Judges never publicly comment on cases they oversee because to do so would potentially undermine the words they’ve used in court but they always have to show in court the reasons why they have sentenced a defendant the way they did.

Anyone can complain that a sentence is too short. That complaint goes to the attorney general – a cabinet minister and the government’s top legal adviser.

The attorney general asks top prosecutors to advise whether it is in line with expectations, taking into account the discretion that judges have, or completely at odds with what would have happened in comparable cases.

If the attorney general concludes the sentence was out of line, he will refer it to the Court of Appeal where three senior judges will look at what happened in a public hearing and rule on whether the sentence was right or unduly lenient.