Right to Equality welcomes today’s Court of Appeal decision to send to detention two teenage boys convicted of multiple counts of rape against two girls in Fordingbridge.
The offenders were originally given non-custodial sentences by His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, who cited their age, “peer pressure”, ADHD, anxiety and other emotional difficulties. The impact their crimes had on the girls never appeared in the judge’s sentencing remarks. Despite one of the victims, Jazmine, saying she “wanted to die” after her ordeal, HHJ Rowland declared the rape of two young girls, which were filmed and shared on social media, “does not reach the high threshold of severe psychological harm”.
HHJ Rowland consistently minimised the violence of the crimes in his sentencing remarks, stating, “there was no violence or exploitation.” In reference to the use of a knife in the second incident, HHJ Rowland said,“If someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers…”
The judge did not name the crimes as “rape” in front of the offenders. Instead he referred to the crimes as “those serious things that happened…” and told one of the defendant, “You… did sexual things to her.” This language sanitises a serious and deeply damaging crime.
In our view, HHJ Rowland also used previous consenting sexual activity to justify his sentencing, “Previous consenting sexual activity… may be relevant to interpretation of the jury’s verdict and therefore culpability.” It is not for a judge to “interpret” the verdict. The jury convicted the boys. Past consensual activity cannot reduce blameworthiness for rape.
We are also concerned by aspects of the language used during the Court of Appeal hearing. Mr Edward Henry KC, offender’s barrister for Y said that the offences were the result of peer pressure and a “fear of missing out.” You can have a fear of missing out on a party, not on raping two girls. We also heard Ms Clare Wade KC, defence barrister for X, describe HHJ Rowland’s sentencing as “the most effective way of protecting women and girls”.
We are horrified by the assertion that failing to give rapists custodial sentences is the best way to protect women. Women and girls are safer when serial rapists are punished for their crimes. The court has thankfully accepted Jazmine’s request to increase the current ten-year restraining order to a lifetime restraining order but otherwise throughout this process, the court has failed to listen to the survivors’ voices.
The court expressed frustration with the Attorney General’s Office, with the press and the public and at times appeared to have greater concern about the impact of media coverage on Judge Nicholas Rowland and the boys than about the lifelong impact of these crimes on the girls who endured them. Edward Henry KC, defence for Y, described the boy as a “pariah” who has suffered post trial “acute post-traumatic stress disorder”. He is not a victim. Invoking “himpathy” in this way was misguided in our view.
This case shocked the nation and the world. Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, presiding over the Court of Appeal, suggested that part of the public outcry was a result of “inaccurate reporting” namely that the media incorrectly reported rape took place at knifepoint and three boys (rather than two) raped girls. We disagree; the public outrage was a direct response to the reprehensible nature of the crime, the judges own sentencing remarks and that multiple counts of rape against two girls in two separate incidents resulted in non-custodial sentences.
The public response demonstrated a clear rejection of the idea that “boys will be boys” when it comes to rape and sexual violence.
Today’s decision will provide some reassurance to the wider public that when serious mistakes are made, our justice system has mechanisms to correct them. Yet many will remain concerned that a judge who allowed convicted rapists to walk away with a three-month curfew and rehabilitation order faces no formal reprimand.
Cases such as this are rarely accepted for investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). In 2024–25, 3,279 complaints were submitted to the JCIO, yet only 89 resulted in any form of sanction, and the majority of these concerned magistrates. Right to Equality believes reform of the complaints process is urgently needed to ensure there is meaningful accountability when bias, discrimination and victim-blaming appear in our courtrooms.
This case is further evidence of what countless victim campaigners repeatedly say about their experience of our justice system: victim-survivors are sidelined. Even when a jury reaches the decision to convict a defendant for rape, our justice system can still find ways to minimise their offences and disempower and re-traumatise the victims.
Jazmine, like all victims in the criminal justice system, are not parties and do not have legal representation. Jazmine’s family are calling for victim advocates in court to centre rape survivors’ voices. We are aware that the Government is in the process of introducing independent legal advocacy for sexual offence victims but that this service will not be eligible for under 18s. In light of this case, we urge them to commission a similar service for young people.
Finally, we urge the judiciary and the Government to consider this case and the learning carefully. No one, not even judges, are beyond bias. It is the job of our institutions and legal system to create transparent and accountable systems to prevent and address it. Systems that the public, and victim-survivors, can finally have confidence in.
Date published: 2nd July 2026