The Guardian view on lenient sentences for rape: teenage survivors deserve more from the justice system
The decision to review the sentences of two teenage boys convicted of raping two girls, aged 15 and 14, in separate incidents in November 2024 and January 2025, and a third boy who took part in the second rape, is correct.
The decision to review the sentences of two teenage boys convicted of raping two girls, aged 15 and 14, in separate incidents in November 2024 and January 2025, and a third boy who took part in the second rape, is correct. A knife was used to threaten the second victim, and the attacks were filmed with footage later uploaded to social media. Given the severity of the crimes, and the fact that having raped one girl, two of the boys went on to rape another two months later, the non-custodial sentences handed down last week by a judge in Southampton look like a serious mistake.
Fortunately, the law in England and Wales allows for overly lenient sentences to be revised by the court of appeal. In this case, a dramatic request came from one of the victims herself. In a BBC television interview on Sunday, she said that the youth rehabilitation orders issued by the judge felt like “a rock straight in my face”. She said the outcome had made her question the point of reporting the crimes in the first place, and going through a distressing trial. Such comments should alarm everyone concerned with prosecuting rape. Her mother made a public plea to the prime minister: “Please help.”
It seems certain that Richard Hermer, the attorney general, will refer the sentences up the chain – probably within a week. Most convicted rapists are sent to prison for several years. The judge in this case cited the youth of these offenders as reasons for not jailing them (two were 14 and the other 13 when the rapes were committed). But while he was right to stress the importance of rehabilitation, and young offender institutions do not have a good track record, it is extremely concerning that the impact on the victims of watching their attackers go free appears to have carried less weight.
It is also wrong that deterrence did not feature more prominently in his reported remarks. At a time of acute concern about violence against women and girls, and particularly about the proliferation of technologically enabled forms of abuse such as the filming of assaults and sharing of images, sentences send important messages to the public. It is disturbing to think that the normalisation of sexual violence, in which the online pornography industry has played a key role, may both have influenced these boys’ behaviour, and made it less likely that they would face the most serious consequences.
The timing is awkward for the government. Earlier this month, David Lammy launched a youth justice white paper containing sensible proposals including the creation of a network of small, regional youth jails, to replace failing institutions such as Feltham, and a consultation on whether the age of criminal responsibility should be raised above 10. It also used wording about “not criminalising children unnecessarily” that was echoed by the judge in this case. Ministers must now make clear that letting rapists walk free was not what they meant. This is evident from the white paper, which states that “for the most serious offences, custody will always be necessary”.
But the government must also do more about tackling the threats to girls and women, in the context of a growing sense that they are not up to it. This was added to by the recent resignation of the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips. It has been added to again by a teenage rape survivor’s brave decision to speak out.
