Key Facts
- •John Edward Bancroft (71) convicted of two counts of oral rape, two counts of vaginal rape, and one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming.
- •He pleaded guilty to 30 further offences.
- •Sentenced to 25 years (22 years custody, 3 years extended licence) concurrently on rape charges, with concurrent sentences for other offences ranging from 6 months to 6 years.
- •Appeal against conviction and sentence, with an application to amend grounds of appeal.
- •The prosecution's case involved the use of a 938-page timeline bundle of evidence, including chat logs, messages, and images.
- •The defense applied to exclude much of the timeline bundle following Bancroft's guilty pleas, arguing irrelevance and prejudice.
- •The judge refused the application, deeming the evidence relevant to consent and character.
- •The appeal focuses on the admissibility and prejudicial effect of the timeline bundle and the judge's summing-up.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Complainants entitled to lifetime anonymity.
Judgment paragraph 1
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.101(1): Admissibility of bad character evidence if relevant to the issues.
Judgment paragraph 17
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.101(3): Exclusion of evidence if prejudicial despite relevance.
Judgment paragraph 17
Totality principle in sentencing: Overall sentence must be just and proportionate.
Judgment paragraph 36
Sentencing guidelines: Categorisation of rape offences and relevant factors (harm, culpability, vulnerability).
Judgment paragraphs 37, 41, 43, 44
Outcomes
Leave to amend grounds of appeal refused in part (ground 3), granted in part (ground 4).
Ground 3 lacked merit as the decision to proceed with the trial was the defendant's informed choice. Ground 4 was closely related to existing grounds.
Appeal against conviction refused.
The judge's decisions on admissibility of evidence and summing-up were not deficient. The evidence, including the timeline bundle, was relevant to the issues of consent and grooming.
Appeal against sentence refused.
The sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge's approach to categorisation of offences, consideration of mitigating factors, and application of the totality principle were justified.