Senior Judge Criticises Attorney General Over Failure To Correct False Report Case

The Attorney General should have acted publicly to correct widespread factual inaccuracies following the sentencing of three teenage boys convicted of multiple rapes in Fordingbridge, the Lady Chief Justice has ruled, warning that the failure to do so risked undermining confidence in the justice system and lent credibility to false reporting.

In a strongly worded judgement, Baroness Carr, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said the Attorney General missed a crucial opportunity to address significant errors that emerged after the original sentencing hearing in May. The case, which attracted intense public scrutiny and prompted personal attacks on the sentencing judge, has become a wider test of how government ministers, prosecutors and the courts communicate during high-profile criminal proceedings.

The criticism follows a Court of Appeal decision earlier this month to increase the sentences of two boys, now aged 15, after concluding that their original non-custodial sentences for raping two teenage girls were “unduly lenient”. The pair were instead sentenced to four years’ detention. A third boy, aged 14, was also convicted for his role in the offences but was not subject to the appeal.

Central to the controversy was a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) press release issued after the original sentencing, which incorrectly stated that one of the girls had been raped at knifepoint and had been forced to leave behind her mobile phone and an Air Tag so her movements could not be tracked. During sentencing at Southampton Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Rowland had made clear that no knife had been used and that the victim had left her belongings voluntarily. He said he was certain that a knifepoint rape “did not happen”.

The inaccurate press release remained publicly available for almost three weeks before being corrected on 10 June, despite attracting significant media attention and contributing to widespread misinformation about the case. Baroness Carr described the errors as “very significant” and questioned why the scale of public interest and the volume of inaccurate reporting did not trigger an earlier review.

Although the Director of Public Prosecutions, who leads the CPS, apologised for the mistakes, the Lady Chief Justice said the court found it difficult to understand why the inaccuracies were not identified and corrected sooner or in a more prominent manner. She acknowledged assurances that new procedures would be introduced to improve the clearance and checking of future CPS press releases, adding that the court trusted similar errors would not be repeated.

However, the judgement extended beyond criticism of the prosecution service, focusing significant attention on the conduct of Attorney General Lord Hermer after he referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

Baroness Carr said that by the time the referral was made, public debate around the case had become increasingly heated, with Judge Rowland facing sustained personal criticism based largely on false accounts of what had occurred. Despite making public statements, including a video message and comments on the BBC’s Political Thinking podcast, Lord Hermer failed to use those opportunities to correct the misinformation or explain the legal process that was already underway.

The court concluded that while the Attorney General is not generally responsible for policing inaccurate media coverage, the circumstances of this case placed him in a different position. Having become directly involved through the referral process and choosing to comment publicly on the offending, he should have ensured that information being circulated was accurate.Baroness Carr warned that when ministers make public statements without correcting widely known inaccuracies, they risk giving those falsehoods legitimacy.

She said that if a member of the Government, particularly the Attorney General, speaks publicly about the seriousness of criminal offending, they should ensure that what is communicated is fair and accurate and should correct any widespread factual errors of which they are aware. Failing to do so, she said, lends “currency and endorsement” to misinformation.

The Lady Chief Justice also expressed concern that no member of the Government had publicly condemned the personal attacks directed at Judge Rowland, despite widespread commentary criticising him over facts that were later shown to be incorrect.

She described those attacks as improper and warned they posed a threat to judicial independence, underlining the importance of protecting judges from political or public pressure while legal processes remain ongoing. The judgement further emphasised the constitutional role of the Attorney General, stressing that the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal must remain independent of political considerations.

Baroness Carr said the case demonstrated why the referral power should be exercised solely in the interests of justice and “not in pursuit of government agenda, however worthwhile”.An Attorney General’s Office spokesperson said the judgement was being carefully considered and pointed to the CPS’s acceptance of responsibility for the inaccurate press release. The spokesperson said Lord Hermer had sought assurances once he became aware of the errors and had received confirmation that steps were being taken to prevent similar mistakes in future.

The spokesperson also defended the Attorney General’s record, stating that he had consistently supported the independence of the judiciary and had repeatedly expressed concern about attacks on judges. They added that he remained committed to maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly among victims and survivors of violence against women and girls.

The underlying criminal case involved three teenage boys, identified only as X, Y and Z because of their ages. Between them they were convicted of ten rape offences relating to attacks on two girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. The first victim, referred to as C1, was 15 when she was raped by X and Y in November 2024 in an underpass near the River Avon after initially engaging in consensual sexual activity with one of the boys. Parts of the rape were filmed.

The second victim, C2, who was 14, was raped by the same two boys at Fordingbridge Recreation Ground in January 2025. Again, consensual sexual activity preceded the rape, and parts of the attack were filmed, this time by the third boy, Z.

At the time of the offences, X and Y were both aged 14, while Z was 13.The original non-custodial sentences imposed in May prompted widespread public criticism and ultimately led to the Attorney General referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Earlier this month, the appeal judges ruled that the punishment imposed on the two principal offenders was unduly lenient and replaced it with four-year detention sentences.

Following the revised sentencing, the mother of one of the victims welcomed the increase in punishment but said it still did not go far enough. She described the new sentence as “better” than the original outcome but maintained it was “not enough”.

The Court of Appeal’s judgement now leaves behind not only a revised sentence but a broader warning about the importance of accuracy in criminal justice reporting. Baroness Carr’s ruling makes clear that where misinformation takes hold in high-profile cases, public authorities have a responsibility to act swiftly to protect the integrity of the justice system, uphold confidence in the courts and ensure public debate is based on fact rather than fiction.