Rape victim's mother says new four-year jail sentences for her teen attackers is 'not enough' as they plan fresh appeal against their fresh jail terms

By MARTIN ROBINSON, CHIEF REPORTER Published: 09:10, 3 July 2026 | Updated: 09:16, 3 July 2026 The mother of a teenager raped by two boys who were initially spared jail for good behaviour has said the four-year prison sentences they have received are still 'not enough' as it was revealed they plan to appeal. The 15-year-olds have now been sent to young offender institutions after carrying out violent sex attacks in an underpass in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. The boys, who raped the two girls on separate occasions while 'egging each other on', now plan to appeal their new jail terms.  The two teen rapists, known only as X and Y, were originally given suspended sentences after being convicted of rape and indecent image offences involving two 'vulnerable' girls aged 14 and 15. Judge Nicholas Rowland praised the boys for how they had behaved during the trial. But yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled the sentences were 'unduly lenient' and re-sentenced them to four years' detention following an application by Attorney General Lord Hermer. The mother of one victim, called Jazmine to protect her identity, said: 'How could any mother be happy with four years? Jazmine is going to live with a lifetime of trauma, and she's going to live with a lifetime sentence. 'Of course, it's not enough, but it's more than we had... So, I have to be grateful.' Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Mrs Justice Norton and Lord Justice Edis increased the older boys' sentences after Lord Hermer referred the case under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. Pictured: One of 15-year-olds convicted of rape following a five-week trial at Southampton Crown Court. None of the attackers can be named because of their age Pictured: The other 15-year-old, who was today given a four-year detention order   A third suspect, a 14-year-old who encouraged the rape of the second victim, was handed an 18-month suspended sentence. Parts of both assaults were filmed on the boys' mobile phones. The trio, who cannot be identified because of their ages, appeared at the London court via video link from Southampton Crown Court, where they were originally sentenced in May. X and Y were each given four years' detention in a young offender institution, while the youngest boy's sentence remained unchanged. Baroness Carr told the boys: 'We have thought very hard about everything we have read, and everything we have been told.' 'Having done so, we have decided that we do need to change your sentences, and that both of you do need to go into detention.  'We have made this decision because we think that what you both did was so bad that we have no other choice. 'You both raped two girls on two different occasions. You were enjoying it and egging each other on. You made it worse by filming what you did, which was a horrible thing to do.' Speaking slowly and to acknowledge the defendants' difficulties in understanding, the judge added: 'Even though you will not be in detention for the whole of the four-year sentence, we know that it will still be a long time for you to be away from your home and families. 'But what you both did was so bad that we decided that we had no other choice than to make these sentences.' Addressing Z, Baroness Carr said: 'We have decided that because you were very young and find some things really very difficult to understand, and because you were only involved on one occasion, we do not need to change your sentence.' She added that trial judge His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland's 'assessment of seriousness' was the issue at the heart of the appeal.  But she said he had erred in this regard, because he did not properly consider the age and vulnerability of the girls, or the 'severe' psychological harm caused to them. X and Y would have each been jailed for terms 'substantially in excess of 10 years' had they been adults at the time, she said.  One of the rapes took place in this underpass in Fordingbridge in Hampshire, in November 2024 The families of both victims - also granted anonymity - said they were 'deeply grateful and relieved' by the Court of Appeal judges’ decision to increase the sentence. One said: 'We believe this was the correct decision, and we are thankful that our voices were heard throughout this process.  'While nothing can undo our family’s anguish, this outcome brings a greater sense of justice and accountability.' The second family said: 'We are relieved that the court recognised the seriousness of these offences and imposed immediate custodial sentences. 'The original sentences were devastating for the family and left us feeling that the harm caused to our daughter had not been fully recognised.  'While no sentence can undo the trauma she has endured, today’s decision gives us a greater sense that justice has been served and that those responsible have been held properly accountable. 'We are immensely proud of our daughter's courage and strength throughout this long and difficult process.  'We hope this outcome reassures other victims and survivors that their voices matter and that the justice system can correct decisions that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of these crimes.' Yesterday, Tom Little KC, for the Attorney General, said Judge Rowland was 'wrong' to spare the trio custody, and said detention was the 'only appropriate sentence' for them. Judge Rowland had said the offences of the two 15-year-olds 'crossed the custody threshold', but he should 'avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily'. Mr Little said the judge failed to properly consider the psychological impact on the young victims, or the girls' vulnerability, as he set out the case for harsher punishments. He said the judge also appeared not to properly consider the 'clear evidence of extensive harm' suffered by the girls. Addressing the Appeal Court judges, Mr Little said parts of Judge Rowland's approach to sentencing were 'fundamentally flawed' and that he demonstrated a 'failure to grapple with the seriousness of the offending'. Mr Little added: 'A community sentence could simply not be justified for each of these child offenders despite their ages and any intellectual limitations.' Appeal Court judges (left to right) Ms Justice Norton, Lord Justice Edis and Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr ruled the two older teenagers should go into custody He said 'no sentence other than detention was appropriate' for the trio. Edward Henry KC, for Y, told the Court of Appeal the strength of public outcry was in part down to an error in a Crown Prosecution Service press release which wrongly stated a knife was used during one of the rapes. He said Y, whose IQ is in the bottom one per cent of children his age, had 'behaved deplorably and disgracefully', but that 'the opprobrium, the sheer force of hatred on social media' had made his punishment worse. Tracy Ayling KC, for Z, the youngest defendant, said publicity based on inaccurate information was 'particularly unfortunate'. And Clare Wade KC, for X, said that Judge Rowland 'approached the sentencing exercise correctly'. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr - the most senior judge in England and Wales - criticised the CPS for including inaccurate information and demanded answers, particularly given claims the errors were not corrected until two weeks after they were spotted. Baroness Carr said: 'I would like to know what steps are being taken to prevent things like this ever happening again.' She said that the court was 'considering what our options are' in relation to the error. A CPS spokesperson said: 'Following the trial, the CPS issued a press release which reflected the prosecution case at trial, but did not accurately reflect the judge's findings in relation to the offending. We later amended the release to correct this and regret the error. 'It is essential that our public communications accurately reflect court findings. We have reviewed the circumstances of this case and we will identify lessons for the future.' The case provoked a strong reaction from politicians and members of the public aghast that the teens had been spared custody.  Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said afterwards: 'These despicable youths should have been jailed.  'This is a sickening case of soft justice.' Boys X and Y were also handed lifelong restraining orders not to contact either victim again.   No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.