PRP v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1150
R v BJK
14 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 667
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing two girls. His lawyers argued that one girl confused him with other abusers, but the court said there was no real evidence of this. The man's conviction was upheld, and while the judge made some small changes to the sentence due to minor errors, the length of his prison term remained largely the same.
Key Facts
- •BJK (A) was convicted of 11 serious sexual offences against two complainants (B and C) after a retrial.
- •Offences against B (counts 1-8) involved sexual activity with a child and attempted sexual touching.
- •Offences against C (counts 9-11) involved assault of a child under 13 by penetration and assault by penetration.
- •A was sentenced to a total of 16 years' imprisonment, including a 10-year special custodial sentence for offences against C, with a further one-year licence period.
- •A appealed his conviction on three grounds, primarily concerning the exclusion of cross-examination of B about previous sexual abuse allegations against other men.
- •The defense argued that B may have confused or transposed the actions of other men onto A.
- •The prosecution argued that the defense's suggestion was speculative and without evidential foundation.
Legal Principles
Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 restricts evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual history unless the court grants leave.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 41
Leave under Section 41 will only be granted if the evidence relates to a relevant issue, is not primarily aimed at impugning credibility, and a refusal might render the conclusion unsafe.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 41(2)(b), (3), (4), (5)
The court must conduct a fact-specific analysis to determine whether there is an evidential basis for suggesting confusion or transposition of abuse.
R v AM [2009] EWCA Crim 618, R v Davison [2015] EWCA Crim 1907
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 protects victim anonymity.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The court found the defense's suggestion of confusion or transposition to be speculative and without evidential foundation. The judge's refusal to allow cross-examination on previous allegations did not render the conviction unsafe.
Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence largely refused, but leave granted to amend sentence to reflect statutory errors.
The sentence was considered stiff but not manifestly excessive. However, technical errors concerning the application of the Sentencing Act 2020 were corrected.