A TEENAGE boy has been sentenced to six years’ detention, after being found guilty of raping two younger girls.

The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons, denied five counts of rape, three on one girl and two involving the other, plus two charges of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

He underwent a trial at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court, last month, when Jo Kidd, prosecuting, outlined that the alleged offences took place between July 2015 and January last year.

The defendant was said to have raped the two girls on the upstairs landing and in a bedroom at a house in County Durham.

She said the girls told police they had been raped by the teenager at least twice in the presence of two other youngsters, who were paid to be his “look-outs”.

Giving evidence, the defendant denied all of the accusations, claiming they had been made up by one of the girls’ relatives.

He said they were encouraged to make a complaint after reading a women’s magazine, claiming the relative would “drum things into peoples’ heads”, similar to some of the storylines.

The defendant said: “There were stories about kids being abused, people killing themselves, and most of it was of a sexual nature.”

But, under cross-examination by Ms Kidd, the defendant admitted he lied to police about how his DNA could have been found in five pairs of the girls’ underwear, and said he could give no explanation as to how it got there.

Ms Kidd said the scientific evidence was “compelling and overwhelming”.

Finding the teenager guilty of all seven counts, District Judge Kristine Harrison said: “Quite frankly, the idea of a girl being able to recount in such detail from a magazine is nonsensical.

“I cannot find his version of events to be true in any way shape or form.”

The case was sent for sentence to Durham Crown Court, where Judge Deborah Sherwin had to consider if the defendant constitutes a significant risk of causing serious harm by further similar offending, and if it merited an extended sentence for public protection.

She told the teenager: “Even if I conclude you are a dangerous offender, I’m not obliged to pass an extended sentence.

“I’m minded to think you are dangerous, but, given your age and background, I can pull back from an extended sentence.”

Imposing the six-year detention order, she said it was half of what the defendant could have expected to receive had he been sentenced as an adult offender.

The defendant was also made subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, restricting future contact with underage girls, and put on the sex offenders register, both for unlimited periods.