At the time of publication, the case of the rape of two young girls (aged 14 and 15) in 2024 and 2025 in Hampshire (Southern England) by two boys who were themselves aged 13 and 14 at the time of the offences is horrifying the United Kingdom and causing outrage on social media. The violence of the acts, their premeditation, their repetition within a few months of each other, the ages of the victims and the perpetrators: everything combines to shock public opinion in a society known for its restraint.
Beyond the horror of the facts, it is also the decision of the judge (Nicholas Rowland) in charge of the case that is causing outrage and dismay. Despite exceptionally damning evidence, he found a plethora of reasons not to impose heavy sentences on the perpetrators, who were nonetheless found guilty. They received only light sanctions and no custodial sentence. It is difficult not to see in this decision a literal legal celebration of rape culture and a patriarchy that denies women the right to feel safe.
Summary of the Facts
- Two boys (assisted by a third) aged 13–14 raped two teenage girls aged 14 and 15 in two separate attacks in November 2024 and January 2025. The perpetrators filmed each assault. The victims did not know each other.
- Convicted in March 2026 after a five-week trial, the perpetrators received only Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs) of between 18 months and 3 years. No custodial sentence, despite eleven counts of charges.
- Following the national outcry, the Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal for review (currently ongoing).
An Inadequate Application of UK Youth Justice Principles to the Circumstances
While the sanctions decided by Judge Nicholas Rowland are consistent with the general direction of youth justice in the United Kingdom, it is their inadequacy given the severity of the offences — and the near-total disregard for the suffering of the victims — that makes this decision so alarming and problematic.
UK law and case law tend to hold that the custodial sentencing of minors should only be used as a last resort. This position is coherent for minor offences and misdemeanours. According to available statistics, the incarceration of young people is not an effective rehabilitation tool and may even make things worse — through exposure to more hardened offenders, the severing of social ties, reoffending rates, and the stigmatisation effect.
Applying this principle is therefore coherent in cases of “minor” delinquency — but wholly inadequate in the context of an act as serious as rape. The judge also disregarded numerous cases in British case law where underage perpetrators were sentenced to substantial custodial terms.
Search for Mitigating Circumstances
Judge Nicholas Rowland identified a number of circumstances he considered as mitigating the defendants’ responsibility, including:
- peer pressure
- a below-average IQ
- mild cognitive impairment
- ADHD
- a limited understanding of the concept of consent
Taking these elements into account is not only insulting to the victims, but also undermines the very notion of social justice.
The Main Problems Raised by This Ruling
- The focus has been shifted away from the harm suffered by the victims — who face lifelong psychological damage — and redirected toward the future wellbeing of the perpetrators.
- The severity of the harm suffered by the victims is minimised.
- General principles, designed for ordinary offences, are applied to a situation of exceptional gravity.
- The rhetoric adopted by the judge is particularly disturbing, displaying what appears to be an almost benevolent attitude toward the defendants — as illustrated by remarks such as “nobody needs to go to prison today,” and by the fact that he praised the perpetrators for their good behaviour during the proceedings.
A Decision Symptomatic of a Legal System Steeped in Patriarchy and Rape Culture
It is difficult not to see in this ruling a deeply patriarchal stance in which the roles are reversed and the male perpetrator is treated almost as a victim. One might also wonder whether, in an identical situation, a female judge would have handed down the same sentence.
A discourse that seeks to find justifications to absolve perpetrators of sexual violence is typical of the rape culture that is widespread in contemporary Western societies. This culture creates a social and cultural environment in which sexual assaults are normalised, minimised, or implicitly tolerated. In the legal sphere, it leads to decisions entirely disconnected from the principles of gender equality that are supposed to govern our societies. Fallacious arguments can then be advanced — as was the case during this trial.
A Choice by a Judge Who Had Other Options
The exceptional nature of the circumstances gave the judge grounds to depart from the conventional principles of youth justice. Despite this, he made the conscious decision to apply particularly lenient and non-restrictive principles with regard to the defendants.
He could have imposed severe sanctions on the basis of aggravating circumstances such as:
- the use of a knife to coerce one of the victims
- the filming of the assaults
- reoffending
- the premeditation and planning of the attacks
This is precisely what makes this decision so problematic. The judge had the opportunity to offer the victims a form of comfort through social justice, but appears to have chosen instead to protect the perpetrators.
A Considerable Societal Impact if the Decision Is Upheld by the Court of Appeal
Contrary to what is often assumed, criminal law is designed to protect public order and the interests of society. Redressing the harm suffered by the victim and “punishing” the defendant are secondary objectives. At a societal level, a judge’s decision is therefore not neutral: it reflects the position of all institutions with regard to the act committed.
Justice can therefore either:
- emphasise the gravity of sexual assaults and take action aimed at eradicating them, or
- trivialise their severity, suggesting that they constitute incidents with limited impact.
The consequences of such a ruling therefore extend far beyond individual justice and the restoration of a sense of safety for each of the victims. This decision sends a clear message to potential sexual aggressors: in our society, rape is not a serious act, and committing it exposes the perpetrator to only moderate consequences — in the rare cases where rape is even reported. This impunity is all the greater for underage perpetrators, who account for one in five sexual offenders.
For the victims, it obscures the gravity of the harm they have suffered and further calls into question the relevance of reporting rape. In this context, why put oneself through a long and painful process, relive a traumatic assault, if the outcome is that no meaningful action is taken?
This decision reflects a total confusion about the problem that needs to be addressed. The disruptive element destabilising public order is sexual assault — rape — not its reporting by the victim. Firm sanctions in cases of sexual assault must be put in place in order to send a strong message both to potential sexual aggressors (who face severe consequences) and to victims (who will obtain justice).
Conclusion
No explanation — whether from an individual or collective standpoint — justifies this decision, which is steeped in sexism under the guise of respect for the rules in force. Such a ruling is extremely dangerous at a societal level, as it trivialises the gravity of rape and sexual assault, presenting them as “youthful mistakes” that should therefore be excused. It diminishes the impact on the lives of victims, and also the importance of the safety of all women, who are potential victims of such assaults. Rape simply has no place in a society that aspires to be civilised, regardless of the age of the perpetrators.
The case has been referred to the Court of Appeal by Richard Hermer, the Attorney General for England and Wales, and we hope that the sentence will be reviewed and increased in proportion to the gravity of the offences.
Sources
- The Crown Prosecution Service — Three teenage boys sentenced after two girls raped in separate attacks, Hampshire, England
- The Crown Prosecution Service — Sentencing of underage perpetrators (1)
- The Crown Prosecution Service — Sentencing of underage perpetrators (2)
- UK Government — Official Statistics: Reoffending Rates for Minors Following Detention (England and Wales, 2024-2025)
“`
Leave a Reply