Rapist boys spared jail 'should be detained', Court of Appeal told
Three rapist boys spared prison in a case which shocked the nation should have been jailed, the Court of Appeal was told today.
Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, said detention was the 'only appropriate sentence' for the trio after a string of attacks on 'vulnerable' girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, a couple of months apart in 2024 and 2025.
Two boys aged 15, known as X and Y, and another aged 14, known as Z, were given non-custodial sentences in May for a combined ten counts of rape and seven indecent image offences relating to two victims.
The two older boys were involved in both attacks, while the 14-year-old encouraged the rape of the second victim.
Sentencing them at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Rowland said the offences of the two 15-year-olds 'crossed the custody threshold', but he should 'avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily'.
The sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal as 'unduly lenient' by Attorney General Lord Hermer within one working day following public outcry.
Setting out the position for harsher sentences, Mr Little told the Court of Appeal today the original judge failed to properly consider the psychological impact on the young victims, the girls' vulnerability, and he appeared not to properly consider the 'clear evidence of extensive harm' suffered by the girls.
The boys, who have not attended the hearing in London, were handed community sentences with youth rehabilitation orders and are opposing the bids to have their punishments increased.
The scene of a teenage rape case in 2024, which attracted accusations of soft justice after the young perpetrators were spared jail
Addressing the hearing, Mr Little said parts of Judge Rowland's approach to sentencing were 'fundamentally flawed' and that he demonstrated a 'failure to grapple with the seriousness of the offending'.
He said it was accepted that Judge Rowland tried to apply the guidelines for sentencing children and young people, but the guidelines did not prevent him from imposing detention in an appropriate case.
He continued: 'The judge failed to stand back and properly consider and reflect upon the true seriousness of the case because he did not properly regard the case as being as serious as it was.'
Mr Little said the sentences imposed on X and Y were unduly lenient, adding: 'A community sentence could simply not be justified for each of these child offenders despite their ages and any intellectual limitations.'
In written submissions, he said: 'In summary it is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for X, Y and Z was detention.'
Mr Little continued: 'Had the judge properly assessed the seriousness of the offences he could only reasonably have concluded that lengthy sentences of detention were required for both X and Y and that a sentence of detention was required for Z.'
He said 'no sentence other than detention was appropriate' for the trio.
And he acknowledged there was 'national concern expressed' the day after the sentencing hearing.
A hearing to potentially increase the sentences handed to three rapist boys is happening at the Court of Appeal
Responding at the time, the Attorney General Lord Hermer said there was 'an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country' while the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the case as 'distressing'.
Sentencing, the judge said: 'None of you have been in any big trouble before. You have all done very well with the restrictions put in place throughout the trial.'
But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said afterwards: 'These despicable youths should have been jailed. This is a sickening case of soft justice.'
Edward Henry KC, for Y, told the Court of Appeal the strength of public outcry was in part down to an error in a Crown Prosecution Service press release which wrongly stated a knife was used during one of the rapes.
He said Y, whose IQ is in the bottom 1 per cent of children his age, had 'behaved deplorably and disgracefully', but that 'the opprobrium, the sheer force of hatred on social media' had made his punishment worse.
Y was now considered a 'pariah' in his community, Mr Henry said, and his family had been advised to leave their home.
Clare Wade KC, for X, said that Judge Rowland 'approached the sentencing exercise correctly'.
Her client, she said, had the potential for rehabilitation, and that he would be 'vulnerable' in a custodial setting.
Tracy Ayling KC, for Z, the youngest defendant, said publicity based on inaccurate information was 'particularly unfortunate'.
In a statement this week, one of the victims said the attack on her left her 'harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same'.
She said the trial of her attackers 'broke something inside me'.
She said: 'I feel like I am carrying what happened every day. I wake up with it, I go to school with it, I try to sit exams with it, and I go to sleep with it.
'It is always there. I cannot just switch it off. I cannot just move on.'
The two-day appeal hearing is before the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton.
The sentence can be deemed 'unduly lenient' only if it falls outside the range of sentences considered reasonably appropriate for the sentencing judge to hand down, based on the facts and evidence of the case.
The judges cannot examine or change the offences for which the defendant was sentenced and cannot look at any new evidence related to the case.
They can only assess whether the sentence was unduly lenient based on the evidence before the sentencing judge at the time.
If the sentence is deemed unduly lenient, the original sentence is quashed, and a new sentence is substituted.
The trio – who cannot be identified because they are under 18 – have been asked to attend Southampton Crown Court tomorrow afternoon when they are expected to be informed of the Appeal Court judges' decisions.
Brain cancer breakthrough as new drug shows 'promising results'
A groundbreaking immunotherapy treatment could help push the deadliest form of brain cancer into remission, a study suggests.
Researchers in London and Canada have found that a new CAR-T cell therapy may eliminate aggressive glioblastoma tumours and lead to long-term disease survival.
It could be a major breakthrough in the fight against the currently incurable cancer, which affects 3,200 Britons per year and devastatingly kills 95 per cent of patients within just five years of diagnosis.
Scientists have spent decades searching for ways to manage glioblastoma but it has proved difficult because the disease spreads through the brain by sending tiny, thread-like extensions into healthy tissue.
Unlike many other cancers, it also cannot typically be fully removed with surgery and remaining cells often resist chemotherapy and radiotherapy, allowing the disease to thrive.
Now, however, teams at King's College London and McMaster University believe CAR-T therapy could be the answer.
Already available on the NHS, CAR-T is used to treat around 2,500 patients in Britain each year - often for blood cancers - and works by instructing a patient's own immune cells to recognise cancer cells in the body and destroy them.
In the new study, published in the journal Nature, scientists tested a new version of the treatment in animals with glioblastoma using models designed to mimic the human disease.
Researchers in London and Canada have found that a new CAR-T cell therapy may eliminate aggressive glioblastoma tumours and lead to long-term disease survival
Strikingly, in two of the main experiments, the therapy completely eliminated tumours in 12 out of 13 mice treated.
The mice also remained tumour-free for longer than four months in one group, and for more than five months in another.
The scientists' method involved identifying a protein, named GPNMB, on glioblastoma and macrophages - immune cells that normally help defend the body from infection but are hijacked by cancer to resist treatment.
They then engineered the CAR-T therapy to recognise the protein, allowing them to attack both the tumour and the cells protecting it.
Sheila Singh, professor of neuro-oncology and neurosurgery at King's College London and McMaster University, and the study's lead author, said: 'Instead of treating glioblastoma as only a mass of cancer cells, we need to think of it as a connected tumour-immune ecosystem.
Glioblastoma affects 3,200 Britons per year and kills 95 per cent of patients within just five years of diagnosis. Labour politician Dame Tessa Jowell died from the disease in 2018
'Our approach targets both the tumour and the environment that allows it to thrive.
'By going beyond the cancer cells alone, we are also targeting immune cells that help shield the tumour from treatment.'
Although the treatment has not yet been tested on humans, authors say their results demonstrated 'strong preclinical efficacy'. This could open the door for the therapy to one day be used for human treatment if any future trials are successful.
Most glioblastoma patients currently live on average for between 12-18 months, and charity Brain Tumour Research say there have been no advances on a cure for two decades.
CAR-T therapy, meanwhile, is typically used for treating children and adults with leukaemia and for some adults with lymphoma. Both leukaemia and lymphoma are forms of blood cancer.
The process involves collecting white blood cells from a patient's immune system, which the body uses to help fight disease. The cells are then genetically modified to recognise proteins found on cancer cells before being put back into the bloodstream.
The study's co-author Shan Grewal, from McMaster University, said their method of attacking the disease with the CAR-T therapy differs from most previous approaches which focused on killing cancer cells alone.
This is because the new treatment attacks two parts of the disease at once: the tumour itself and the immune cells that help it evade the body's defences.
He said: 'Our work suggests we may also need to dismantle the immune support system that helps glioblastoma survive.'
The use of CAR-T therapy in the trial is part of a growing drive to investigate how effective the treatment can be against brain tumours.
Read More
I'm a hospital consultant and missed my own prostate cancer. These are the signs you MUST not ignore
Glioblastoma is the most common type of cancerous brain tumour in adults and killed Labour politician Dame Tessa Jowell in 2018. The Wanted singer Tom Parker also died following an 18-month battle with the disease in March 2022.
Symptoms of brain tumours include persistent or worsening headaches, seizures, feeling sick or drowsy and suffering with memory problems.
Other signs can also include feeling weak on one side of the body or having new problems with vision or speech.
Anyone experiencing persistent or unusual symptoms should speak to their GP.
Professor Singh concluded: 'Only through collaboration with scientists across the world and with clinicians can we tackle this devastating disease.
'I've seen first-hand through my work as a neurosurgeon the impact glioblastoma has on patients and their family members and I am committed to developing new treatments to improve outcomes for those affected by brain cancer.'
