The Attorney General has been criticised by England and Wales' most senior judge for not publicly correcting significant factual errors in the reporting of a high-profile rape case involving three teenage boys in Fordingbridge. Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr stated that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, should have intervened to clarify inaccuracies that emerged following the initial sentencing in May.
The case involved three boys, two aged 15 and one aged 14, who received non-custodial sentences in May for separate rape offences against two girls in the Hampshire town, which occurred in November 2024 and January 2025. Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal reviewed these sentences, finding them to be 'unduly lenient', and subsequently sentenced the two older boys to four years of detention.
A key point of contention arose from a press release issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after the initial sentencing. This release incorrectly stated that the boys had used a knife during the attack on the second girl and that she had been forced to leave her phone and an AirTag in a shop to prevent tracking. Judge Nicholas Rowland, who presided over the Southampton Crown Court hearing, had explicitly stated that a knifepoint rape 'did not happen' and that the girl left her possessions 'by choice'.
Baroness Carr highlighted that these 'very significant errors' in the CPS press release were not corrected until 10 June, nearly three weeks later. While acknowledgements and apologies from the Director of Public Prosecutions were accepted, the judge expressed difficulty understanding why the volume of inquiries and extent of misreporting did not prompt an earlier review and a more prominent correction of the press release.
Furthermore, Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton, raised concerns about public statements made by Lord Hermer after the sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal. These included a video statement on 26 May and an appearance on the BBC's Political Thinking podcast. She noted that by the time Lord Hermer referred the sentences, a 'febrile atmosphere' surrounded the case, including personal attacks on Judge Rowland. The court indicated that the Attorney General's public utterances did not achieve the objectives of correcting factual inaccuracies or explaining the justice system's mechanism for reviewing unduly lenient sentences.
Baroness Carr stressed that while the Attorney General is not generally tasked with policing media accuracy, his involvement in referring the sentences for review meant he had a responsibility to ensure accuracy in his public communications. She stated that if a government member, particularly the Attorney General, chooses to comment publicly on the gravity of offending, they must ensure fairness and accuracy, correcting widespread misreporting to protect the administration of justice and all involved parties.