Two 15-year-old boys who walked free after raping two teenage girls have been sent to four years' detention after the Court of Appeal ruled their original sentences were “unduly lenient”.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr told offenders X and Y, who appeared via video link from Southampton Crown Court: “We have decided that we do need to change your sentence and that both of you do need to go into detention. We have made that decision because we think that what you both did was so bad that we have no other choice.”
“Two 15-year-old rapists jailed for four years after Court of Appeal overturns their 'lenient' non-custodial sentences.”
The case sparked national outrage after Judge Nicholas Rowland spared the boys custody at an earlier hearing, giving them youth rehabilitation orders instead. The judge had said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” despite admitting the offences – which included 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences – “crossed the custody threshold”.
In the first attack, in November 2024, X and Y – then aged 14 – raped a 15-year-old girl who thought she was going on a first date. In a second attack in January last year, they took turns raping a 14-year-old girl while a third boy, Z, encouraged them and filmed the assault. The footage, shown in court, captured one victim lying motionless in a field with “her face buried in her hands”.
The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, referred the initial sentences to the Court of Appeal, calling them “unduly lenient”. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the case as “appalling”.
Delivering the court’s conclusions, Carr said the trial judge had “erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences”. She told the boys: “You both raped two girls on two different occasions. You were enjoying it and egging each other on. You made it worse by filming it.” Carr made clear that had the boys been adults, sentences in excess of 10 years would have been required.
The mother of one victim, referred to as Jazmine, said: “Nothing will ever be enough for the trauma caused to my daughter. Yes, it's better, but it's not enough. How could any mother be happy with four years? Jazmine is going to live with a lifetime of trauma, and she's going to live with a lifetime sentence.”
Carr ruled that the 231 days X and Y had already spent on curfew would count towards their sentences, meaning they will not serve the full four years. They were also handed lifelong restraining orders prohibiting them from contacting the victims.
Z, who was 13 at the time of the offences, had his 18-month youth rehabilitation order unchanged. Carr told him: “What you did was also very bad. We have decided that because you were very young … we do not need to change your sentence.”
Following the ruling, the family of victim C1 said in a statement: “Today's judgement cannot erase what happened … but justice has finally been done.”