Two teen rapists spared custody partly because of intellectual limitations, judge says

The judge’s full account shows that two of three teenage boys convicted of raping two girls in Fordingbridge were spared prison partly because they were judged to be of low intelligence.

Two 15-year-old boys were given non-custodial sentences by Southampton Crown Court judge Nicholas Rowland, who said he wanted to “avoid needlessly criminalizing these children” after raping two girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, in May.

A third boy, now 14, was also found guilty of rape for his involvement in the second attack and for indecent images. He also avoided detention.

The sentences of the three children are being sent to the Court of Appeal following a review under the Extremely Light Sentences (ULS) programme.

Attorney-General Lord Hermer said there was an “epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country” after Sir Keir Starmer announced the “regrettable” case would be sent following public outcry.

The full text of Judge Rowland’s sentencing remarks for two 15-year-old boys and a 14-year-old boy has now been published.

The first 15-year-old defendant was given a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and supervision (ISP) for rape and two indecent images charges each of two girls, aged 14 and 15 at the time.

The second boy, aged 15, was given the same sentence on three counts of rape against each of the two victims and four counts of taking indecent photographs related to the filming of the events.

A third boy, aged 14 at the time and aged 13, was sentenced to 18 months YRO on two counts of rape for inciting the second defendant and making an indecent image in the second incident.

In his comments, Judge Rowland said: “I have concluded that the offenses for which (the two 15-year-old boys) were convicted exceeded the custody threshold, but in light of the guidelines in relation to children I am not obliged to grant immediate custody.”

He also said rules on state supervision of young offenders should be seen as a “last resort” and “should take into account the objectives of youth justice, which are to prevent children from offending and to ensure the welfare of the child”.

He said: “I must take into account the ages of the children at the time these crimes were committed.

“As this decision makes clear, what I am concerned with is not just chronological age but also emotional and developmental age.

“I need to take into account the ages of these children … and act on the basis that custody is a last resort.”

Judge Rowland explained that although the two 15-year-olds were assessed by the Youth Justice Service as a “medium risk” of re-offending but a “high risk of serious harm” to the young women, he had to take into account their backgrounds.

He said the first defendant had been diagnosed with ADHD and “long-standing anxiety”, while the second had an IQ in the bottom 1 per cent compared to his contemporaries, had ADHD with “extreme neurodevelopmental impairment” and was “more like an eight-year-old”.

The judge also said he had to take into account that they had both served “effective significant sentences”; The first defendant spent 462 days subject to a curfew and 27 days in detention in local authority accommodation, which he said was equivalent to an 18-month prison sentence.

He said the second defendant was subject to a 461-day curfew and 20 days of local authority accommodation, which was equivalent to a 17-month prison sentence.

The young defendant, he said, had “a very low intellectual capacity of less than 5 percent compared to his contemporaries” and “showed signs of mild to moderate anxiety, was emotionally immature.”

He also added that his crimes “did not exceed the threshold of detention” and that he was “at low risk of re-offending”.

Judge Rowland explained his decision not to remand them into custody: “I must avoid unnecessarily criminalizing these boys and encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, understand the impact of their behavior on the two girls and their families, and support the boy’s reintegration into society.

“Are there any considerations that would reduce the delinquency of these children? They were immature and may not understand their risk-taking behavior.

“Did they act impulsively? Peer pressure is an important factor.”

“Children will likely benefit from the opportunity to address their behavior, learn from their mistakes, and be open to change.

“Children’s delinquency can often be a phase; the impact of punishment is likely to be felt more intensely by the child.”

He said he was satisfied that the “YRO” for each of the defendants would “provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation and therefore reduce the risk of further offending”.