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," he said.
"For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible."
The two older boys, J and N, received three-year YROs with 180 days of intensive supervision. The youngest boy, E, received an 18-month YRO.
These sentences mean the boys returned to their community, but under strict monitoring to see if they are making progress.
The sentencing remarks show that Judge Rowland split the sentencing of the three boys into two parts.
In the first phase, he addressed the boys directly with simple, generalised language, reflecting advice given to all judges to talk to child offenders in a way that they can understand.
During this phase, the judge referred to their crimes as "serious things".
He told the boys that the restrictions he was placing on their lives were a punishment and they must be overseen by experts "so that you do not do the things that jury decided you did do".
The second phase - which has not been fully reported until now - saw the judge set out a lengthy and legally complex reasoning for the court record so that barristers could understand his thinking.
He told both the defence and the prosecution teams that the nature of the case meant that it was not comparable to previous incidents in which boys of around the same age had been placed in youth custody for sexual offences.
The facts of the Fordingbridge attacks - and the characteristics of the offenders - were "very different", he said.
The judge said that according to the evidence, and the jury's verdicts, both victims had initially consented to some sexual activity but their consent was later withdrawn, particularly after a phone was used to film.
The judge told the court that initial consent could not excuse away the rapes.
The judge also said that there had been "no violence or exploitation" but their crimes had been aggravated by the boys acting together and filming.
"I do not find there was planning in either part," he said.
The judge added that the lead two defendants, J and N, had already spent the equivalent of an 18-month and 16-month sentence, respectively, in detention in local authority accommodation or on curfew.
"That is a significant feature when determining whether an immediate custodial sentence must follow," the judge said.
