Next month the Court of Appeal will review the non-custodial sentences given to three boys convicted of serious sexual offences against two girls in Hampshire, after newly published sentencing remarks complicated some of the claims that fuelled public outrage over the case.

Senior judges will consider whether the Youth Rehabilitation Orders imposed at Southampton Crown Court were unduly lenient in the case, widely referred to as the Fordingbridge case, and whether the sentences should be increased.

The three boys, whose names are protected under reporting restrictions, were convicted following a five-week trial at Southampton Crown Court. The case involved two girls, aged 14 and 15 at the time, in separate incidents in Fordingbridge in November 2024 and January 2025.

Two of the boys, both aged 14 at the time of the offences and 15 at sentencing, received three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders with 180 days of Intensive Supervision and Surveillance. A third boy, aged 13 at the time of the offences and 14 at sentencing, received an 18-month Youth Rehabilitation Order. None received an immediate custodial sentence.

The judge stated that he wanted to ‘avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily’.

Attorney General Lord Hermer KC referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme after receiving multiple requests for review. His office said it had considered the facts of the offending, the judge’s findings and the relevant sentencing guidelines before making the referral.

The referral followed widespread concern regarding the children’s sentences being unduly lenient in what Keir Starmer called a ‘distressing’ case. The sentencing of the boys sparked criticism across the country from many who believe the boys should have been given prison sentences.

The publication of the sentencing transcript has also raised questions about how accurately the case was initially described in public.

Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza stated: ‘I welcome the urgent review being undertaken by the Attorney General. My office will be reaching out directly to the families involved to offer support. Children must know that if they speak up, adults and institutions will act decisively to keep them safe and deliver justice.’

The Crown Prosecution Service also later added a correction to its sentencing press release stating that an earlier version had referred to a ‘knife-point rape’ to represent the evidence put before the jury. The CPS said the judge’s finding of fact after the verdicts was that he was sure this did not happen. 

The sentencing transcript, published by the Judiciary earlier this month, records His Honour Judge Rowland’s findings in more detail.

The judge said one girl had put the phone and tracking device in the Co-op ‘by choice’ and ‘not as a result of pressure from a boy’. He found that, although she had alleged she was forced at knife point to go with the boys and participate in non-consensual sexual activity, he was sure this did not happen.

Judge Rowland also said there had been no kidnap, and that even if a knife had been present it formed no part in any alleged kidnap or forced sexual activity. He added that if a knife had been used during the sexual offending and attributable to a particular defendant, the outcome of the sentencing hearing would have been ‘very different’.

Ultimately, the judge said he had sentenced ‘three children for a total of 17 sexual offences committed in relation to two girls’. He also emphasised the effect of the offending on the girls, describing both as ‘brave’ for giving evidence and providing victim impact material.

But the transcript shows that the sentencing decision turned on a complex youth justice framework. Judge Rowland said he had to consider not only the seriousness of the offending, but also the boys’ ages, developmental maturity, welfare, learning difficulties, risk of further offending and prospects of rehabilitation.

The judge found that the custody threshold had been crossed for two of the boys. However, he said youth sentencing guidelines required custody for children to be a last resort, particularly for children aged 14 or under at the time of offending.

‘I must have regard to the objectives of youth justice being to prevent offending by children and the welfare of the child…For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible,’ he continued.

He concluded that immediate detention was not required and that Youth Rehabilitation Orders would provide the best prospect of rehabilitation and reducing future risk.