Jennifer To is a JURIST correspondent for the UK and a law student at the University of Birmingham.
On 2 July, the Court of Appeal sentenced two fifteen-year-old boys to four years in jail for committing rape and other sexual offences against two girls in November 2024 and January 2025. The court held that the previous judge was wrong to impose “unduly lenient” non-custodial sentences after a lower court initially spared the boys from custody.
The case of R v XYZ [2026] EWCA Crim 845—known as the Fordingbridge case—involved three boys, who were 14 at the time of the offences and 15 by the time of the Court of Appeal sentencing. The boys were connected to the rape of two teenage girls in two separate incidents under an underpass in Fordingbridge, UK. In one incident, two of the boys attacked and raped a then-15-year-old girl beneath an underpass, while the third filmed the assault and shared the footage online. The boys then threatened the victim to prevent her from reporting the crime. The second victim, 14 years old at the time, faced a similar attack.
These incidents sparked national outrage after the original judge, His Honour Judge Rowland, ruled that the perpetrators should not receive custodial sentences. In his judgment, he stated, “I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, understand the effects of their behaviour on the two girls and their families, and promote the boy’s reintegration into society.”
Both victims reported suffering significant emotional and physical trauma. One of the victims stated, “Since it happened, my life has got worse, but since the sentencing hearing it has become worse again…I feel damaged. I feel worthless…I do not want to leave the house. I feel scared and on edge.”
Attorney General Richard Hermer KC referred the Fordingbridge case to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS), which allows for review of sentences considered too lenient. The Lady Chief Justice ruled that the original judge was wrong to impose non-custodial sentences because he did not take full account of the severe psychological harm caused to the victims, and had “undervalued the seriousness of the offending.”
As a result, two of the three teenage boys received four-year custodial sentences, while the third teenager’s non-custodial sentence remains unchanged.
The lower court’s decision to render non-custodial sentences to the teenagers reflects the UK Criminal Justice System’s handling of violent crimes against women and girls. The trial judge considered the perpetrators’ age as a major mitigating factor in the original judgment. Under English sentencing guidelines, custodial sentences are considered a “last resort” for child perpetrators, prioritising rehabilitation and preventing re-offending. However, this approach risks undermining the victims’ lived experiences of rape and sexual abuse. The victims’ parents have stated that four years in detention is “not enough,” raising questions about whether the justice system adequately protects women and girls.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals recognized the gravity of the crimes by imposing a custodial punishment, and reinforced the justice system’s commitment to safeguarding victims’ rights and safety. The Attorney General’s reference and the Court of Appeal’s review upheld the rule of law, demonstrating that justice can be served by prioritising victims’ lived experiences and rights.
The case outcome brought some solace to the victims as their voices were heard. The barrister for one of the victims said of the sentencing, “One case cannot change a system…but the opportunity this case makes to put victims at the centre of the system cannot be wasted.”
