Attorney General reviews Hampshire teen rape sentences after political backlash

The Attorney General’s office has launched an urgent review of sentencing decisions made at Southampton Crown Court, following widespread condemnation from senior political figures regarding the non-custodial orders given to three teenage boys for the rape of two girls in Hampshire. The review was triggered after multiple requests were submitted under the unduly lenient scheme, a mechanism allowing the government to challenge sentences perceived as insufficient.

Jess Phillips, the former safeguarding minister who resigned earlier this month, described the sentences as sending a “bad message” to the public. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Phillips argued that the youth rehabilitation orders failed to reflect the severity of crimes where assaults were filmed and shared on social media. She characterised the behaviour of the defendants as “raping for content,” noting that the victims had endured months, if not years, of legal proceedings to seek justice.

The case centres on two separate incidents in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. In November 2024, a 15-year-old girl was raped by two 14-year-old boys. In January 2025, a 14-year-old girl was threatened with a knife and raped by two of the three defendants, while the third encouraged the assault and filmed the incident. At Southampton Crown Court, two 15-year-old defendants were sentenced to three-year youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision and surveillance, while the 14-year-old received an 18-month order.

Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones echoed Phillips’ criticism, stating the sentences were “far too lenient” and offered to support the victims’ families if they wished to appeal. Jones highlighted the disturbing nature of the crimes, particularly the online dissemination of the assaults, and emphasised the need for improved education regarding sexual violence and misogynistic attitudes to prevent future offences.

During the sentencing, Judge Rowland cited the defendants’ cognitive impairments, including ADHD and low IQ scores, as well as peer pressure, as mitigating factors. The judge stated that avoiding unnecessary criminalisation was essential for the boys’ reintegration into society. However, the victim of the second attack described in a court statement that she suffers from nightmares and feels she is “grieving the person I used to be,” underscoring the lasting trauma inflicted by the crimes.