Court of Appeal increases sentences for two teenage boys convicted of rape
The Court of Appeal overturned unduly lenient sentences for two 15-year-old boys who raped two girls in Hampshire, imposing four years' detention instead.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
The Court of Appeal has overturned the non-custodial sentences given to two teenage boys convicted of raping two girls in Hampshire, imposing four years' detention instead. The boys, who were 14 at the time of the offences and are now 15, had originally been handed youth rehabilitation orders by a judge at Southampton Crown Court in May. That decision sparked widespread public outrage, with the Prime Minister and women's groups among those criticising the sentences as too lenient.
The Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which heard arguments over two days. The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, ruled that the original sentences were unduly lenient. She said the trial judge had failed to properly account for the seriousness of the offences, which involved multiple rapes of two different victims on separate occasions, as well as the filming of the attacks. Addressing the boys directly via video link, she told them: "What you both did was so bad we have no other choice. You both raped two girls on two different occasions. You were enjoying it and egging each other on."
The first rape took place in November 2024 in an underpass by a river in Fordingbridge. The second occurred two months later in a field near a sports centre. The boys filmed the attacks, and some footage was posted online. A third boy, who was 13 at the time and convicted of encouraging one of the attacks and filming it, did not have his sentence changed.
Victims and their families welcomed the increased sentences, though some expressed mixed feelings. One victim, referred to as Jasmine, said she had felt "more trapped" after the original sentencing and had tried to take her own life. Her mother told the BBC: "Nothing will ever be enough for the trauma that Jasmine was put through. Yes, it's better, but it's not enough." Another victim's family said the original sentences left them questioning the criminal justice system, but that today's decision gave them a greater sense that justice had been served.
The boys will serve half of their four-year detention in custody, with time already served on remand taken into account. They will also be subject to lifetime restraining orders, meaning the victims will not have to face them again. The barrister for one victim said the ruling sent a strong message that rape, even by children, will not be tolerated.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, mapped by channel. Ordered by how many channels carried each claim.
| Claim | Channel 5 | BBC One | BBC Two | Channel 4 | ITV | Sky News |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Court of Appeal ruled that the original non-custodial sentences for the teenage boys were unduly lenient, finding the trial judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the offences. | · | · | ||||
| Three teenage boys were convicted of multiple rape and sexual offences against two girls; two received non-custodial sentences, and a third younger boy was convicted for filming the attack and did not have his sentence changed on appeal. | · | · | ||||
| The Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal, saying he believed the sentences were unduly lenient, following public and political outcry. | · | · | · | |||
| The family hopes the decision reassures other victims that the justice system can correct inadequate sentences. | · | · | · | |||
| The two boys were sentenced to four years in detention, will serve half (reduced to months due to time already served on curfew), and will be under police supervision and restraining orders for life. | · | · | · | |||
| The Attorney General welcomed the decision and commended the victims' bravery. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The case was processed in record time, with the appeal heard only a few weeks after the original sentencing. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The Crown Prosecution Service issued a press release containing incorrect facts about a knife and kidnapping, which the judge had ruled out. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The family said the original sentences were devastating and left them feeling the harm to their daughter had not been fully recognised. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The Lady Chief Justice addressed the boys directly via video link, explaining the severity of their actions. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The victim received taunts and abusive messages online and was blamed in school corridors. | · | · | · | · | · | |
| The victims' family said sentencing guidelines for children must be reviewed. | · | · | · | · | · |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
BBC One West focused on the procedural timeline and the legal reasoning behind the appeal, including the Attorney General's referral and the Lady Chief Justice's direct address to the boys. It included detailed victim impact statements and the family's reaction, emphasising the trauma and the sense that justice was partially achieved.
- “The question was, how is it that boys who'd been convicted of multiple rape offences against two different teenage victims on two different occasions could end up with sentences which involved no custodial element at all?”
- “Nothing will ever be enough for the trauma that Jasmine was put through. Yes, it's better, but it's not enough.”
Sky News emphasised the public and political outcry, including the Prime Minister's involvement and a petition to remove the judge. It also highlighted a CPS press release error about a knife and forced abandonment of devices, which the judge had ruled out. The tone was critical of the original sentencing and the CPS mistake.
- “The Prime Minister himself weighed in, saying that it was right that this case be reviewed.”
- “They had wrongly said that one of the girls was raped at knifepoint and that she had essentially been kidnapped because she had been forced to leave her devices behind so that she couldn't be traced. In fact, not only was that not true, the judge had categorically ruled that out.”
5 News focused on the emotional impact on victims, including powerful victim impact statements read in court. It provided a clear narrative of the two attacks and the legal process, and noted that the boys will serve only half of their sentence and be under police supervision for life.
- “I feel ashamed insecure and uncomfortable in my own body the person I was before has completely gone”
- “I feel like I am the one who has been sentenced I feel like I am the one living in a prison even though I did nothing wrong.”
ITV1 highlighted the family's relief and the legal arguments, including the claim that one of the convicted rapists had become a pariah due to media coverage. It also noted the lifetime restraining orders and the victims' ongoing trauma, with a focus on the message that shame must change sides.
- “Today's judgment cannot erase what our daughter has suffered, but it does acknowledge the seriousness of these offenses.”
- “As Giselle Pelico said, shame must change sides. He is not the victim.”
Channel 4 focused on the victims' perspective, including an interview with one victim's parents who described the online abuse their daughter faced and the stigma of blame. It also reported the appeal judges' conclusion that the trial judge had undervalued the seriousness of the offences and the psychological impact on victims.
- “What you both did was so bad that we decided we had no other choice but to make these sentences.”
- “Jasmine received taunts online, Jasmine received abusive messages, she was called things walking down the school corridor, you know, it's still being, it was still being blamed onto her.”
This second BBC One West report (from BBC News and Weather) focused on the victim's mother's reaction, emphasising that no sentence can ever be enough for the trauma. It included the Lady Chief Justice's simplified language to the boys and the detail that a third boy who filmed the rape did not receive a custodial sentence.
- “How could any mother be happy with four years? Jasmine is going to live with a lifetime of trauma and she's going to live with a lifetime sentence.”
- “You were enjoying it and egging each other on.”
This ITV News at Ten report was brief, summarising the key facts: the original non-custodial sentences, the Court of Appeal ruling, and the four-year detention. It did not include victim statements or detailed legal arguments, serving as a headline update.
- “In May a judge gave them non-custodial sentences saying children should not be criminalized unnecessarily but the court of appeal today ruled that their original sentences were unduly lenient.”
BBC Two's Newsnight focused on the family's statement welcoming the decision, emphasising that the original sentences were devastating and that the ruling gives a greater sense of justice. It also noted the hope that this reassures other victims that their voices matter.
- “We are relieved that the court recognized the seriousness of these offenses and imposed immediate custodial sentences, adding the original sentences were devastating for the family and left us feeling that the harm caused to our daughter had not been fully recognized.”
- “we hope this outcome reassures other victims and survivors that their voices matter and that the justice system can correct decisions that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of those crimes.”
This second Sky News report included an interview with the parents of one victim (Jasmine), focusing on their mixed feelings of relief and the view that no sentence is enough. It highlighted the lifetime restraining order as a key change and the mother's comment that the original judge was out of touch with modern society.
- “I don't feel that any sentence would ever be long enough for this heinous crime.”
- “to suggest and to even state that the boys should not be criminalized unnecessarily for heinous acts of rape and videoing rape is so incredibly wrong.”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.