26/05/2026
🚨 MAJOR BREAKING: Hampshire r**e case sentences to be reviewed by Court of Appeal Following judge Nicholas Rowland’s Lenient Sentance Against the s*x offenders💥
The sentences handed to two teenage boys convicted of r**e in Hampshire will now be examined by the Court of Appeal, after Attorney General Lord Hermer KC formally referred the case under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
The case sparked widespread public concern after the two offenders—both under 18—were spared immediate custody, receiving community‑based sentences despite being found guilty of r**e.
The ruling prompted calls for scrutiny from safeguarding groups, legal commentators, and MPs.
A Court of Appeal panel will now determine whether the original sentences should be increased. A hearing date has not yet been set.
• The sentences given to two teenage boys convicted of r**e in Hampshire are being sent to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
• Attorney General Lord KC reviewed the case following public outcry and has now referred it under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) mechanism.
• The original sentencing decision—non‑custodial outcomes for a r**e conviction—triggered significant national debate about:• consistency in sentencing
• public confidence in the justice system
• how courts handle serious s*xual offences involving young offenders
• Safeguarding organisations and legal experts argued that the case raised systemic concerns about how the courts weigh youth, culpability, and harm.
• The Court of Appeal will assess whether the sentences were “unduly lenient” under statutory criteria.
• Possible outcomes include:• upholding the original sentences
• substituting them with harsher penalties
• issuing guidance for future case
• A hearing date is expected to be listed shortly.
• The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme allows certain serious offences—including r**e—to be challenged within 28 days of sentencing.
• Only the Attorney General can make such a referral.
• The Court of Appeal is not required to increase a sentence simply because it is controversial; it must be outside the range a reasonable judge could impose.