Active discussions

Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think these boys should have been incarcerated?

921 replies

newrubylane · 21/05/2026 14:06

BBC News - Teenage boys sentenced for raping lone girls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypg68e2neo

I've never started an AIBU before, but I'm genuinely really shocked. I'm just not sure how this sentence is justifiable. Their actions were premeditated and deliberate, they were carrying a knife and they filmed themselves. They're obviously a danger to women/girls, and probably to other boys too.

If anyone knows how and why this sentence might have come about, I'd be interested to hear it.

A footpath beside a river, leading under a road bridge

Teenage boys sentenced for raping lone girls in Fordingbridge

The boys filmed themselves laughing and encouraging each other as they raped girls in separate attacks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypg68e2neo

OP posts:
Thread gallery
44
Allisnotlost1 · 27/05/2026 13:10

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 10:34

That post does not give enough information to identify the alleged case and the alleged comments by the Court of Appeal seem unlikely. I'm not saying this is false, but it would have been helpful if the offender was identified allowing the appeal judgement to be found.

Show quote history

I’m not sure if Charlotte Proudman updated her post but the case is named - it’s this one https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2025038318/2025ewcacrim1542TNA/html

ETA the case also shows that Appeal judges are not always inclined to increase sentences.

Anonemousse · 27/05/2026 13:54

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 10:39

@Anonemousse - No, it is not enough for a sentence to "vaguely take into account sentencing rules". A judge must follow the sentencing guidelines in any but the most exceptional cases. These set out the starting point, maximum and minimum sentences for each offence. If a judge steps outside them on either the high or the low side, they know the sentence may be appealable.

In this case, if the offenders were adults they would be in prison. However, rather than set out specific sentences for children and young people, the guidelines define an approach in which, in line with both UK and international law, custodial sentences should be rare. I think the judge has got this wrong and that these offences are so serious that they require a custodial sentence. But, given that the relevant guidelines push strongly against custodial sentences for children and young people, I can understand the judge's decision even though I disagree with it.

Sorry, yes you are right. I was being flippant when I said vaguely. I nust meant that they could fall on either the sentencing continuem without having to particularly justify it.

Allisnotlost1 · 27/05/2026 14:35

Anonemousse · 27/05/2026 13:54

Sorry, yes you are right. I was being flippant when I said vaguely. I nust meant that they could fall on either the sentencing continuem without having to particularly justify it.

Show quote history

I don’t think that’s quite right either - there is a process, starting with the category of culpability, and the judge must demonstrate it to at least some degree. In this case I think he has it wrong, and has weighed mitigating factors (age, compliance, lack of pre-cons) much higher than aggravating ones (acting in concert, multiple victims months apart, the presence of the weapon, the filming). But as you can see from the earlier case above, sentencing is a balancing exercise and the higher court judges recognise this. I think there is an argument for a presumption of custody in rape cases, but that’s a matter for Parliament, not judges.

fartotheleftside · 27/05/2026 15:07

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 10:51

If the offenders were adults, they would be facing at least 10 years in prison less any discount for pleading guilty, and possibly as much as 19 years. The law recognises the seriousness of rape.

Under the sentencing guidelines for children and young people, the judge could have decided that the offence was so serious that jail was the only appropriate sanction. Under the specific guidelines for children and young people convicted of sexual offences, these offences justify a custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering. The judge in this case has opted for youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision and surveillancey. He could, and in my view should, have gone for a custodial sentence.

Show quote history

It's truly shocking that apparently this wasn't serious enough in his eyes. I'm finding it hard to think of a "worse" crime.

Maybe this needs to be spelled out in the guidelines, for the sake of public protection: premeditated rape and murder should strongly indicate a custodial sentence.

MulberryBrandy · 27/05/2026 16:44

fartotheleftside · 27/05/2026 15:07

It's truly shocking that apparently this wasn't serious enough in his eyes. I'm finding it hard to think of a "worse" crime.

Maybe this needs to be spelled out in the guidelines, for the sake of public protection: premeditated rape and murder should strongly indicate a custodial sentence.

Show quote history

There were two things the judge said that did not make sense to me. He wanted to avoid criminalising the boys - even though they had shown premeditation, co-ordination as a group and coercion in committing a series of crimes on two occasions.

The second, that he wants to support their reintegration into society. But, they haven't been out of society, they have been within society when planning these offences and waiting for the trials.

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 17:27

MulberryBrandy · 27/05/2026 16:44

There were two things the judge said that did not make sense to me. He wanted to avoid criminalising the boys - even though they had shown premeditation, co-ordination as a group and coercion in committing a series of crimes on two occasions.

The second, that he wants to support their reintegration into society. But, they haven't been out of society, they have been within society when planning these offences and waiting for the trials.

Show quote history

The guidelines for sentencing children and young people say:

It is important to avoid “criminalising” children and young people unnecessarily; the primary purpose of the youth justice system is to encourage children and young people to take responsibility for their own actions and promote re-integration into society rather than to punish.

Clearly any child or young person who is being sentenced has committed a criminal offence. What the guidelines are going on about here is that we don't want to push young offenders towards a life of crime. We know that a child or young person given a custodial sentence is more likely to become a repeat offender. This is particularly so when the offender has experienced neglect or exploitation, or is in the care system. Punitive sentences can exacerbate this trauma, hence the preference for restorative justice which produces much better results in terms of reducing the likelihood of further offending.

MulberryBrandy · 27/05/2026 17:40

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 17:27

The guidelines for sentencing children and young people say:

It is important to avoid “criminalising” children and young people unnecessarily; the primary purpose of the youth justice system is to encourage children and young people to take responsibility for their own actions and promote re-integration into society rather than to punish.

Clearly any child or young person who is being sentenced has committed a criminal offence. What the guidelines are going on about here is that we don't want to push young offenders towards a life of crime. We know that a child or young person given a custodial sentence is more likely to become a repeat offender. This is particularly so when the offender has experienced neglect or exploitation, or is in the care system. Punitive sentences can exacerbate this trauma, hence the preference for restorative justice which produces much better results in terms of reducing the likelihood of further offending.

Show quote history

Yes, thank you and I would support that. I have been very concerned, for a very long time, that, sadly, a large percentage of people who have been imprisoned go on to commit further and worse crimes.

In this particular case the offenders have been convicted of multiple rapes, and related offences, in a prolonged ordeal on two occasions. The seriousness of these crimes, the pleading not guilty and subsequent putting blame on the girls are all aggravating factors. These are heinous crimes.

Allisnotlost1 · 27/05/2026 17:44

prh47bridge · 27/05/2026 17:27

The guidelines for sentencing children and young people say:

It is important to avoid “criminalising” children and young people unnecessarily; the primary purpose of the youth justice system is to encourage children and young people to take responsibility for their own actions and promote re-integration into society rather than to punish.

Clearly any child or young person who is being sentenced has committed a criminal offence. What the guidelines are going on about here is that we don't want to push young offenders towards a life of crime. We know that a child or young person given a custodial sentence is more likely to become a repeat offender. This is particularly so when the offender has experienced neglect or exploitation, or is in the care system. Punitive sentences can exacerbate this trauma, hence the preference for restorative justice which produces much better results in terms of reducing the likelihood of further offending.

Show quote history

Just to clarify, the alternative to custodial sentences is not restorative justice, which is a separate and non-court ordered process can happen in prison or in the community. I think it should be built into all sentences, but that’s a different debate.

You’re completely right about the evidence re non-custodial sentences and long term outcomes, and I usually support it including for violent offences given how entrenched violence is in the secure estate. But there are some crimes that more or less automatically cross the custody threshold in most cases - rape being one of them. I just can’t see how the judge got to non-custodial for this one. Other than he thinks rape isn’t that bad.

SuperSue77 · 27/05/2026 19:29

So they have 28 days to decide whether it should go to the Court of Appeal - is there likely to be a long wait before it can be heard there? How long is that likely to be? What happens to those boys in the meantime? They continue with the YRO and supervision/surveillance? I wondered if they might be a flight risk, but hopefully not with the supervision in place?

WaryCrow · 28/05/2026 09:16

I don’t believe the law does recognise the seriousness of rape and it never has. Never will in a patriarchy. It’s not just a bit of fun for boys and men who have ‘natural needs’, it destroys lives.

I also hope that this is the beginning of the end for the focus on the forces acting on the poor criminals, and perhaps - maybe? - the beginning of a re-awakening of an understanding of what it takes to make a society. It’s no good deliberately impoverishing and stressing a underclass of people men and then excusing all the shit those men do to the next-nearest underclass in retaliation. Just do not create that underclass in the first place. And if, as in this case, they come from an outside group in the first place, then that group has to understand that if they live outside our laws and do not contribute then they truly are not part of our society. The first duty of a society is to protect its members. There is no such thing as an ideal world: we can only treat those we live with better.

EasternStandard · 28/05/2026 09:37

There’s a piece in The Times with the voice of Olivia (not her real name) on how she feels. Devastating.

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 10:48

SuperSue77 · 27/05/2026 19:29

So they have 28 days to decide whether it should go to the Court of Appeal - is there likely to be a long wait before it can be heard there? How long is that likely to be? What happens to those boys in the meantime? They continue with the YRO and supervision/surveillance? I wondered if they might be a flight risk, but hopefully not with the supervision in place?

It’s already been referred to the Court, usually will be heard within about 4/5 months. I imagine this one will be quicker than that because of profile.

In the meantime they continue on the current sentence. Possibly a flight risk but since they’re young they’d need adults to help them
and anyone around that would be charged too. I don’t know if there’s any information to indicate their families are likely to help them abscond. They complied with the court up to now.

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 10:50

WaryCrow · 28/05/2026 09:16

I don’t believe the law does recognise the seriousness of rape and it never has. Never will in a patriarchy. It’s not just a bit of fun for boys and men who have ‘natural needs’, it destroys lives.

I also hope that this is the beginning of the end for the focus on the forces acting on the poor criminals, and perhaps - maybe? - the beginning of a re-awakening of an understanding of what it takes to make a society. It’s no good deliberately impoverishing and stressing a underclass of people men and then excusing all the shit those men do to the next-nearest underclass in retaliation. Just do not create that underclass in the first place. And if, as in this case, they come from an outside group in the first place, then that group has to understand that if they live outside our laws and do not contribute then they truly are not part of our society. The first duty of a society is to protect its members. There is no such thing as an ideal world: we can only treat those we live with better.

Edited

Describing a whole community of people as an ‘outside group’ is hardly going to bring them together into a closer society is it?

Ohcrap082024 · 28/05/2026 13:18

Just thinking through the timelines going forward. If it does take 4-5 months for the panel of 3 judges to review the case, how long until they actually make a judgement?

I have an awful feeling that the sentences will stand because of where the boys will be within their current sentences.

They will have completed their 3 month curfews. The older ones will be nearing the end of their “180 days of intensive surveillance and supervision”. Yes, the 3 year and 18 months YROs will still have time to run. But the more restrictive parts of their sentences will be done or very nearly done.

So all they need to do is keep their heads down and noses clean, “engage” with the supervison and curfews, and keep their fingers crossed that the wheels of justice turn slowly and they can show that they are “good boys really”.

So is the next step that we have to now campaign for the Court of Appeal to fast track the review of the sentences?

WaryCrow · 28/05/2026 16:59

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 10:50

Describing a whole community of people as an ‘outside group’ is hardly going to bring them together into a closer society is it?

Show quote history

There are travellers who’ve threatened to burn down hospitals. They want to take. That’s all.

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 17:17

WaryCrow · 28/05/2026 16:59

There are travellers who’ve threatened to burn down hospitals. They want to take. That’s all.

Edited
Show quote history

There are people of all races, religions and cultures who have done terrible things. The disgraceful actions of these boys is not an excuse for you to vent your racism.

The people most harmed by the actions of Traveller men are Traveller women. Presumably that’s ok with you because ‘they’ are outsiders?

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 17:20

Ohcrap082024 · 28/05/2026 13:18

Just thinking through the timelines going forward. If it does take 4-5 months for the panel of 3 judges to review the case, how long until they actually make a judgement?

I have an awful feeling that the sentences will stand because of where the boys will be within their current sentences.

They will have completed their 3 month curfews. The older ones will be nearing the end of their “180 days of intensive surveillance and supervision”. Yes, the 3 year and 18 months YROs will still have time to run. But the more restrictive parts of their sentences will be done or very nearly done.

So all they need to do is keep their heads down and noses clean, “engage” with the supervison and curfews, and keep their fingers crossed that the wheels of justice turn slowly and they can show that they are “good boys really”.

So is the next step that we have to now campaign for the Court of Appeal to fast track the review of the sentences?

The Court will make a decision on the day, they don’t defer judgments on AG referrals. I think it’s likely the case will be listed in the next couple of weeks, because of the profile and also because it’s a potential custodial sentence for children who are currently in the community (ie not extending a prison sentence they’re already serving).

Yes, it’s possible the sentences will stand, even if found to be lenient.

Ohcrap082024 · 29/05/2026 09:45

Allisnotlost1 · 28/05/2026 17:20

The Court will make a decision on the day, they don’t defer judgments on AG referrals. I think it’s likely the case will be listed in the next couple of weeks, because of the profile and also because it’s a potential custodial sentence for children who are currently in the community (ie not extending a prison sentence they’re already serving).

Yes, it’s possible the sentences will stand, even if found to be lenient.

Show quote history

That’s good to know about the timings @Allisnotlost1

New posts on this thread. Refresh page