Teen rapists spared jail partly because of intellectual limitations, sentencing remarks reveal

Three boys convicted of raping two girls in separate attacks were spared custody by a judge because of detailed evidence about the precise nature of their offending, prospects for rehabilitation, and the profound intellectual limitations of two of the teenagers.

The boys' sentencing last month caused an outcry when they were given youth rehabilitation orders (YROs) after being found guilty of 10 counts of rape between them for their parts in the Hampshire assaults in 2024 and 2025.

The full transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks have been made publicly available after the BBC requested they be transcribed. They reveal the extremely complex sentencing exercise, including submissions about the boys' neurological impairments and their capacity to understand the impact that they had had on the victims.

The sentences are being referred to the Court of Appeal after a review.

Two boys, then aged 14, were convicted of raping a girl, then aged 15, in November 2024 in Fordingbridge.

In a separate incident in January 2025, a second girl, then aged 14, was raped by the two boys in Fordingbridge. A third boy, then 13, was found guilty of rape by aiding and abetting that attack.

According to the full transcript, an expert from the government's Youth Justice Service told Southampton Crown Court that placing one of boys in custody would be damaging, given his complex intellectual impairments.

Judge Nicholas Rowland said the first offender, J, was described as having ADHD and "slight cognitive difficulties", but he said that did not reduce his personal culpability.

The second defendant, N, was found by experts to have an IQ in the bottom 1% compared with his contemporaries. He had both ADHD and "extreme neurological impairment" which meant he could not cope with ordinary schooling.

His mother had described him as being more like an eight-year-old boy.

"I am quite sure that N's culpability was reduced as result of his profound impairments," Judge Rowland said.

"His understanding of what went on must have been far more limited than a 14 year old operating at a level without his deficits."

The third and youngest boy, E, was found by a psychologist to have "very low intellectual capacity" with limited understanding of consent.

These factors, and others, convinced the judge that he could not detain the boys because the guidelines for sentencing children say that custody is a "last resort", with the priority being rehabilitation.

"The approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence-focused," h