Court of Appeal overturns lenient rape sentences in Fordingbridge case, raises terms to four years
The UK Court of Appeal has increased sentences for two teenagers convicted of multiple rapes from non-custodial terms to four years' detention, ruling the original court imposed unduly lenient sentences.
Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr delivered the ruling with a plain mandate: "We have decided that we do need to change your sentence." The Court of Appeal has overturned non-custodial sentences imposed on two teenagers convicted of multiple rapes in Fordingbridge, replacing them with four years' detention in a young offender institution.
The appeal was brought under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme, a mechanism that allows England and Wales's attorney general to challenge sentences deemed manifestly too lenient on serious offences. Attorney General Richard Hermer said of the decision: "There has understandably been a huge amount of public interest, and concern, at this horrific case."
How the unduly lenient sentence scheme works
The ULS scheme, enacted in 1989, gives the attorney general the power to seek a sentence review in cases involving certain serious offences: murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, child sex offences, child cruelty, and specified fraud, drug, and terrorism crimes. If a sentence falls within the scheme's scope, the attorney general may petition the Court of Appeal for review. The court must first grant leave to appeal; if it does, both the prosecution and defence present arguments before the court decides whether to amend the sentence.
The threshold is high. The court distinguishes between a sentence that is simply lighter than the appeal court would have imposed, and one that is "unduly lenient" — a materially deficient judgment that crosses a clear line. A sentence that is merely somewhat lenient is insufficient grounds for the court to overturn the trial court's decision.
Public involvement in sentencing appeals
The ULS scheme in England and Wales has a distinctive feature absent in other common law jurisdictions. Crime victims and members of the public can request the attorney general's office to review sentences imposed by crown courts — a power unique among common law countries, which includes the US and Canada. The time window for public requests was recently extended from 28 days to six months after sentencing. While a public request does not guarantee the court will grant leave to appeal, it reflects the scheme's attempt to involve the community in ensuring sentencing reflects public concern about serious crimes.
Trial courts can make mistakes even when they follow detailed sentencing guidelines, and the appeal process exists to prevent excessively harsh or excessively lenient sentences from being imposed.
The appeal process itself represents a safeguard common to all common law jurisdictions: both defendants and the prosecution may appeal sentences in recognition that trial courts — known as "first instance" courts — can err. Miscarriages of justice can arise from both excessive severity and excessive leniency. The Court of Appeal's intervention in the Fordingbridge case reflects the operation of that safeguard in practice.