Three teenage boys who were spared custody over the rape of two girls will have their sentences reviewed at the Court of Appeal next month.
Two 15-year-olds were given non-custodial sentences after raping the two girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, by a judge at Southampton Crown Court who said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily”.
A third boy, now aged 14, was also convicted of his involvement in the second attack and an indecent images offence.
Sir Keir Starmer previously announced that the “distressing” case would be referred to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient scheme.
The sentences will now be considered by senior judges at a two-day hearing starting on July 1.
Discussing the referral, Attorney General Lord Hermer said there was “an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country” and that the two girls “displayed immense bravery in coming forward”.
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.
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Nicholas Rowland said the offences committed by the two 15-year-olds “crossed the custody threshold”.
He also said guidelines for youth offenders state custody should be considered as a “last resort”, and he “must have regard to the objectives of youth justice being to prevent offending by children and the welfare of the child”.
He said: “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 explained that although the two 15-year-olds were assessed by Youth Justice Services as of “medium risk” of reoffending but “high risk of serious harm” to young females, he had to consider their backgrounds.
He 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”.
