Barrister Charlotte Proudman, who has been representing one of the girls, has read out a statement on behalf of Jazmine and her family. Jazmine - not her real name - has been referred to as C1 throughout the case.

Her family welcomes the judgement and says “justice has finally been done”. Their daughter lived through a nightmare, and “the emotional toll has been immeasurable”, they add.

Proudfoot has also read out a statement from Jazmine, in her own words. She says she "thought the sentencing might help me" but "I feel like I am the one who was being sentenced".

The trial was "horrific", she says adding that she was "treated like I had done something wrong".

Jazmine says she has attempted suicide a number of times and went to hospital after an overdose.

The attack "left me harmed so severely that I do not think I will ever be the same," she adds.

• If you are affected by any issues raised in this post, support can be found at BBC Action Line

Image source, Getty Images

The attorney general - the chief legal adviser to the Crown and the government - has welcomed the Court of Appeal's decision to increase the sentences imposed on the two boy rapists.

"Rape is a horrifying crime," Lord Hermer says. "And one that our justice system should and will punish severely...

"No one should have to endure what the victims went through, and I commend their bravery in coming forward and campaigning for justice. This government will continue to do everything it can to tackle violence against women and girls."

He previously told the BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast he had "no doubt" about referring the case to the Court of Appeal after the boys were spared jail time.

Image source, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police

Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police Donna Jones says she welcomes the Court of Appeal's decision to increase boys X and Y's sentences to four years' detention.

"It represents an important acknowledgement of the seriousness and impact of these truly appalling crimes," she says in a statement.

This case was "incredibly difficult", she says, because of what happened and because of "the tension within our justice system between how we sentence children".

She adds: "The girls can now start to rebuild their lives in the knowledge these young men are in detention...Their futures and their road to recovery is, and always should be, central to criminal justice.

"Their powerful voices have helped ensure that this case received the attention and scrutiny it deserved."

The families of the victims say they are "relieved" by the Court of Appeal's decision to increase the sentences of two of the boys who were convicted of rape.

In a statement provided by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police, the family of C1 says: "We believe this was the correct decision, and we are thankful that our voices were heard throughout this process.

The family of the other victim, C2, says they were relieved the court recognised the "seriousness of these offences" and imposed custodial sentences. The original sentences were "devastating" and "left us feeling that the harm caused to our daughter had not been fully recognised," they say.

The family adds: "While no sentence can undo the trauma she has endured, today’s decision gives us a greater sense that justice has been served and that those responsible have been held properly accountable."

The family says that they hope the outcome will show other victims and survivors that "their voices matter" and that the justice system can "correct decisions that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of these crimes".

Sean Dilley
Reporting from Southampton

The key takeaway from this is that the Court of Appeal has said that the sentences for two of the boys - who we only call X and Y for legal reasons - were wrong.

Having looked at the original sentence by Judge Rowland, the court said it felt that the judge had not taken sufficient account of the severe psychological distress to the victims in this case.

They did point to something Justice Rowland identified in his previous remarks - that when sentencing, youth custody should be considered as a very last resort.

But the Attorney General's lawyer Tom Little KC had argued this was a last resort case, and it seems that the Court of Appeal have agreed with that.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr has just finished delivering a revised judgment in the case of three boys convicted of rape in Hampshire in May.

In the first, non-televised portion of the hearing, Carr explained the Court of Appeal's decision to the three offenders:

• X and Y, who were originally given three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YRO), have now been sentenced to four years in custody. Carr said time spent on curfew will count toward the sentence
• The pair will have to follow police instructions for their whole lives. Restraining orders on contacting the victims, C1 and C2, will also remain in place for the duration of the offenders' lives
• The third offender, Z - while reminded his actions were "also very bad" - won't have his sentence changed
• In May, Z - aged 13 at the time of the second attack - was given an 18-month YRO and a 10-year restraining order. He's also subject to a nighttime curfew without electronic monitoring

In the second section, Carr outlined the reasons behind the tougher sentences:

• Carr said the original sentencing judge, Judge Nicholas Rowland, carried out a "careful sentencing exercise" but was ultimately "unduly lenient"
• Both incidents were "extremely serious" - but the fact a second incident took place was the "crucial feature" of the review
• A deeper analysis of the case was undertaken, with Carr and her colleagues concluding that Rowland had "erred" in his initial assessment and failed to "take sufficiently into account the age and vulnerabilities of the complainants" and the psychological impact "which we considered to be severe"
• On the case of boy Z, she said he was only involved in the second attack and had been younger than X and Z. Had the latter been adults, they could have received sentences "over 10 years"
• Carr also raised concerns about "inaccurate reporting" on the case", citing "misinformed and inappropriate commentary" from MPs and the media
• She criticised the CPS for a press release that "portrayed the offending as even more serious than it already was" - and its failure to correct it for almost three weeks

Continuing her remarks, Carr turns to comments on the "administration of justice".

She says the judges have expressed concern on "inaccurate reporting" on the case - including "misinformed and inappropriate commentary" from members of parliament and the media.

She in particular criticises the Crown Prosecution Service for a press release that was not a "fair representation" of the case - with details that "portrayed the offending as even more serious than it already was", including the claim that one victim was raped at knife-point.

It took almost three weeks for the CPS to correct, she says.

With that she concludes her remarks.

Carr says X and Y participated in "multiple rapes carried out on others", for which the victims suffered "humiliation and degradation".

She says the original sentencing judge "undervalued" the seriousness of offending, and harm caused to the victims.

Carr says had X and Y been adults they would have likely expected to have received custodial sentences "substantially in excess of 10 years".

After taking into account mitigating factors, the judge says the Court of Appeal decided to quash the previous sentences, and instead sentence the boys to four years detention for each count of rape "to run concurrently" (ie at the same time).

She also quashes the existing 10-year restraining order preventing them from contacting the victims, which is replaced by "indefinite restraining orders".

Carr summarises the two incidents and the reasons behind the revision of the sentences of X and Y.

She says courts have to follow sentencing guidelines, which together require the sentencing judge to assess the seriousness of the offence, and whether they pass the custody threshold.

The assessment of seriousness was at the heart of the appeal, Carr says - recognising the difficulty of the case due to the ages of everyone involved.

Carr says a deeper analysis of the sentencing guidelines and of the two separate incidents was undertaken, adding that it was then "concluded that the judge had erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences".

She says Judge Nicholas Rowland, who passed the original sentence, had been entitled to reach the initial conclusion.

But she adds that the specifics of the case - including the "humiliation and degradation" resulting from the crime and filming, and the fact there were two separate offences - made them conclude the custody threshold had been crossed.

Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, now begins delivering her televised remarks, after explaining the decision to the three defendants.

She explains this will be a "short oral summary" of the judgment and underlines it was a "difficult" sentencing exercise for various reasons - including the number and seriousness of the offences, as well as the ages and vulnerabilities of "very young children".

She says the original judge carried out a "careful sentencing exercise" but the Court of Appeal has decided the non-custodial sentences for X and Y were "unduly lenient".

Each of the two incidents were "extremely serious" but the fact the behaviour was repeated in the second incident is the "crucial feature".

Z, she explains, was only involved in the second incident and is younger than the other two defendants. The judges have decided his sentence was not unduly lenient, she says.

Carr has just finished addressing the defendants directly.

Now there will be a short delay before she delivers a more detailed sentencing decision which will be broadcast on camera.

You'll be able to watch live at the top page.

Turning to Z, Carr says what he did "was also very bad".

She says they have thought "very carefully" about whether to change his sentence too.

"We have decided because you were very young... we do not need to change your sentence," she says.

The judge says both offenders X and Y will be sentenced to four years' detention, but they will not have to stay in that detention for all that time.

"Four years is a very long time," Carr says. "You will not stay in detention for all of that time."

She says time spent on curfew before the trial will count toward the sentence.

She also says they will have to follow police instructions for their whole lives. The restraining orders on contacting the victims will also be in place for the rest of the offenders' lives.

Carr addresses the three defendants, explaining that the judges have been tasked with reviewing their sentences.

She says she will look at X and Y's sentences first.

Carr says they have "thought very hard" about their sentences and that "both of you do need to go into detention".

She says it's because we think "what you did was so bad" they had no other choice.

Daniel Sandford
Reporting from the Court of Appeal

In the court in London, we can see X, Y and Z now sitting in the back row of a courtroom at Southampton Crown Court.

They are all in white shirts, X and Z are wearing black ties.

The three judges sit down in the courtroom and today's hearing begins.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Justice Norton are presiding over the case.

First, Carr is explaining the decision to the boys in simple terms - which isn't being broadcast on camera.

Image source, Getty Images

In yesterday's hearing, the Court of Appeal was told the judge was "wrong" to pass non-custodial sentences on the three boys.

Tom Little KC, for the attorney general, told the court that "the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for [the boys] was detention".

He also said the judge's sentencing remarks had made "limited reference to the marked impact of this offending on both victims and the clear evidence of extensive harm suffered as a result".

Lawyers for the boys argued the judge had approached sentencing correctly, giving the best chance of rehabilitation while protecting against future offending.

The second victim, who was 14 when she was raped in Fordingbridge, said in May she wanted "freedom" from fear.

She told BBC Newsnight: "I just want to be able to go on a walk without being scared that I'm going to see them and they're gonna try to do something again."

Her father said the January 2025 attack has caused a "lifelong impact" on his daughter and called for a custodial sentence for the boys.

"This is a life sentence for her," he said.

The teenage girl said her mental health has suffered significantly following the attack and she struggles to get out of bed.

"I feel like no matter what I do, I can always feel their hands [the rapists'] on me, no matter how much I've scrubbed, how much I've tried to get the feeling away, it's always there and it just doesn't feel like my body anymore."

Sean Dilley
Reporting from Southampton Crown Court

We're outside Southampton Crown Court - where the three boys were initially sentenced in May.

Judge Nicholas Rowland handed each boy non-custodial sentences, as our previous post details.

The boys will appear here to find out whether the Court of Appeal, which is in London, decides if their original sentence was unduly lenient.

We understand that boys will watch today's London court feed from a private room inside the court behind us.

The three offenders have anonymity because of their age, and are being referred to as X, Y and Z throughout the case.

X and Y were given three-year Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YRO) alongside involvement in the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Life Programme (ISSP) for 180 days.

The ISSP is community-based programme used with serious young offenders who are either serving community sentences or on bail.

X and Y's sentence includes supervision, a nighttime curfew with a tag for three months, as well as a restraining order prohibiting contact with the two victims for 10 years.

Z was given an 18-month YRO, which also includes supervision and a 10-year restraining order. Z also is subject to a nighttime curfew, but with a doorstep condition - which isn't electronically monitored.