More than 207,579 verified signatures have been added to a petition demanding an investigation into Judge Nicholas Rowland after three boys convicted of raping two girls in Hampshire walked free from court without custodial sentences.
The petition was launched amid widespread public outrage over the sentencing decision, which saw the boys avoid custody despite being convicted of multiple rape offences and has since been referred to the Court of Appeal.
The case has highlighted broader concerns about how serious sexual offences are sentenced, raising fresh questions about accountability, sentencing and public confidence in the justice system.
In November 2024 and January 2025, two girls, then aged 15 and 14, were raped in separate attacks in Fordingbridge, Hampshire, by two 14-year-olds. Another boy, then 13, was also convicted for his involvement in the second attack.
The boys had denied the charges but were found guilty in March after a trial at Southampton Crown Court. A 15-year-old boy was convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in an underpass on a first date and a 14-year-old girl in a field. Another 15-year-old boy was found guilty of six counts of being involved in the rapes of both girls, while a 14-year-old boy was found guilty of two counts of rape in the second incident. Sentencing was adjourned.
The girls were “significantly outnumbered” and suffered prolonged ordeals, the court heard.
What Happened In The Fordingbridge Rape Case?
The first victim was 15 when she was raped three times in an underpass by the River Avon in Fordingbridge. Prosecutors said she was “pressured” into having sex while being filmed and feared she might be thrown into a river if she did not comply with their wishes.
Afterwards, the girl told the court, the boys asked her, “Why do you look so sad?” and bought her a drink to “cheer her up”.
Prosecutors said the second victim was 14 when she met the boys at Fordingbridge Recreation Ground and was raped repeatedly in a nearby field. She was threatened with a knife and forced to leave both her mobile phone and AirTag behind so her movements could not be tracked.
The court heard that one defendant pushed her down and used a knife to cut her clothing before forcing himself on her.
Some of the January attacks were also filmed on one of the boys’ phones and shared online, with prosecutors saying the footage showed the second victim lying motionless on the ground with “her face buried in her hands” while the person filming egged him on.
What Were The Boys Convicted Of?
The 14-year-old boy was found guilty of rape by aiding and abetting two attacks on the second victim, while one of the 15-year-olds was convicted of six rape charges, including two attacks on the second victim, two on the first victim and two counts of aiding and abetting the other 15-year-old defendant.
Both 15-year-olds were also convicted of taking indecent photos of a child.
Together, the teenagers walked out of court with 10 rape convictions between them.
Why Were The Boys Not Sent To Prison?
The teenagers were given youth rehabilitation orders rather than custodial sentences.
Two of the boys, now aged 15, received three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance. The third boy, now aged 14, received an 18-month Youth Rehabilitation Order after being convicted of rape by aiding and abetting during the second attack.
Judge Nicholas Rowland praised the boys for their behaviour during the trial and said he had given them youth rehabilitation orders (YRO) rather than jail time because he wanted to avoid “criminalising” the “very young” boys and “support their reintegration into society”.
He then emphasised their very young ages and said: “None of you need to go to prison today.”
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales states even in very serious cases, courts should prioritise rehabilitation for children and use custody as a last resort.
Victim Says Sentence Felt Like A ‘Rock Straight In My Face’
After the sentences were handed down, one of the victims told the BBC that the judge’s decision to spare the boys jail sentences had been like a “rock straight in my face”.
The girl, who spoke to the BBC anonymously alongside her family, said the judge’s decision “almost made it seem as if what the boys did was not OK, but it was OK in the eyes of the law because they were still children”.
Her family has welcomed the decision to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal and said they hope it will send a message that serious crimes must receive appropriate punishment.
They have also stressed that they do not want the case to discourage other victims from reporting offences.
Attorney General Had ‘No Doubt’ About Referring Case To Court Of Appeal
The attorney general, Lord Hermer, said: “There has understandably been a huge amount of public interest and concern at this horrific case.
“I directed my officials to work urgently to allow me to consider this decision swiftly, and to begin to bring closure to the victims and their families.
“It is clear to me from their powerful personal statements that these girls have displayed immense bravery in coming forward.
“There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country, and this government will not hesitate in taking action to ensure all women and girls feel safe and have confidence in the justice system.”
Lord Hermer later said he had “no doubt” that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal, adding that he wanted the decision considered swiftly so uncertainty was not left hanging over the victims and their families.
Court Of Appeal To Review Sentences
The Court of Appeal will now consider whether the sentences imposed were unduly lenient.
The case is being considered under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, which allows members of the public to ask the Attorney General to review sentences they believe are too lenient.
If the Attorney General agrees there is cause for concern, the case can be referred to the Court of Appeal, where senior judges will examine the sentencing decision and decide whether the punishment should be increased.
Calls For Greater Judicial Accountability
The ruling has intensified concerns that the justice system continues to place too much emphasis on the rehabilitation of perpetrators and not enough on the lifelong impact experienced by victims.
The petition, launched by Judicial Accountability UK, calls for an investigation into Judge Nicholas Rowland and wider reforms aimed at increasing transparency and accountability within the judicial system.
It argues that survivors of sexual violence often show extraordinary courage by reporting offences, giving evidence and enduring lengthy criminal proceedings, only to see outcomes that leave them questioning whether justice has truly been served.
Campaigners say the Fordingbridge case has become a symbol of wider concerns about how rape cases are handled and whether sentencing decisions reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.
Supporters are also calling for the introduction of a formal judicial accountability framework, greater transparency around sentencing decisions and stronger mechanisms for reviewing controversial judgments.
They argue that judicial independence and accountability should coexist, just as they do in other professions, and that the public should have confidence that sentencing decisions can be scrutinised when serious concerns arise.
Sign The Judicial Accountability Petition
The petition calling for an investigation into Judge Nicholas Rowland and the introduction of a Judicial Accountability Framework has now attracted 207,579 verified signatures. The Women’s Journal stands with survivors and supports calls for greater accountability, transparency and public confidence in the justice system. Readers who wish to show their support can sign the petition below.
