Image@ BBC
In a controversial ruling, a judge has chosen not to impose custodial sentences on three boys convicted of raping two girls during separate incidents.
The decision was influenced by detailed assessments regarding the nature of their offenses, their potential for rehabilitation, and significant intellectual challenges faced by two of the teenagers.
The sentencing, which occurred last month, sparked public uproar when the boys were handed youth rehabilitation orders (YROs) after being found guilty of 10 counts of rape related to assaults in Hampshire in 2024 and 2025.
The complete transcript of the judge’s remarks has been made public following a request from the BBC, revealing the intricate considerations involved in the sentencing process.
This included expert opinions on the boys’ neurological impairments and their ability to comprehend the effects of their actions on the victims.
As a result of ongoing concerns, the sentences are now under review and may be referred to the Court of Appeal.
The two older boys, both 14 at the time, were convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in Fording bridge in November 2024.
In a separate incident in January 2025, they also raped another girl, aged 14.
A third boy, aged 13, was found guilty of aiding and abetting in that attack.
During the proceedings at Southampton Crown Court, an expert from the Youth Justice Service testified that incarcerating one of the boys could be harmful due to his complex intellectual disabilities.
Judge Nicholas Rowland noted that the first offender, identified as J, had ADHD and “slight cognitive difficulties,” but emphasized that this did not lessen his responsibility for his actions.
The second defendant, referred to as N, was assessed to have an IQ in the lowest 1% compared to his peers.
He also suffered from ADHD and “extreme neurological impairment,” which hindered his ability to engage with standard schooling. His mother described him as resembling an eight-year-old in maturity.
”I am convinced that N’s culpability was diminished due to his profound impairments,” Judge Rowland stated.
”His grasp of the situation must have been far more limited than that of a typical 14-year-old.”
The youngest boy, E, was evaluated by a psychologist who found he had “very low intellectual capacity” and a limited understanding of consent.
These considerations led the judge to conclude that custody was not warranted, as guidelines dictate that imprisonment should be a “last resort,” with a focus on rehabilitation instead.
”Sentencing should be individualized and centered on the child rather than solely on the offense,” he remarked.
”For young offenders, rehabilitation should be prioritized wherever feasible.”
Consequently, J and N received three-year YROs with 180 days of intensive supervision, while E was given an 18-month YRO. This means the boys will return to their communities under strict monitoring to assess their development.
The judge’s remarks indicate that he structured the sentencing into two phases.
In the first phase, he communicated directly with the boys using straightforward language, adhering to guidelines advising judges to speak to young offenders in an understandable manner.
He described their actions as “serious things” and explained that the restrictions imposed were punitive measures designed to prevent further offenses.
The second phase, previously unreported, involved the judge providing a detailed legal rationale for his decision, ensuring that barristers could grasp his reasoning clearly.
He informed both the defense and prosecution teams that the specifics of the case were not analogous to prior incidents where boys of a similar age had been sentenced to youth custody for sexual offenses.
The details surrounding the Fording bridge incidents, along with the profiles of the offenders, were “distinctly different,” he stated.
The judge noted that based on the evidence presented and the jury’s conclusions, both victims had initially agreed to some sexual activity, but their consent was subsequently revoked, particularly after a phone was utilized to record the events.
He emphasized that initial consent could not absolve the boys of responsibility for the rapes.
Additionally, he mentioned that he had examined claims regarding the use of a knife during the assaults. After carefully listening during the trial and reviewing available CCTV footage, he was “confident that did not occur.”
”I am certain that even if a knife had been involved, it played no role in any alleged abduction or subsequent forced sexual acts,” he remarked.
”If a knife had been used in that manner, my ruling would be markedly different.”
The judge explained that sentencing guidelines for rape involving coercion, exploitation, pressure, or violence against the victim could warrant a custodial sentence.
He acknowledged that the rape offenses in this instance involved pressure due to the lack of consent, but he found no evidence of further violence or exploitation.
Moreover, he pointed out that the two primary defendants, J and N, had already spent time equivalent to an 18-month and 16-month sentence, respectively, in local authority care or under curfew conditions.
”This is an important factor when considering whether an immediate custodial sentence is warranted,” the judge concluded.
By: Magdalene Agyeiwaa Sarpong