R v BJK
[2024] EWCA Crim 667
Tarjit Singh v R
17 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 815
Court of Appeal
A transgender man was convicted of serious sexual and violent crimes. He appealed his sentence, saying his gender dysphoria and mental health issues should lessen the punishment. The court considered new medical evidence but still thought the sentence was fair, upholding most of it but removing a small unlawful fee.
Key Facts
- •Tarjit Singh (appellant), born female, identified as a transman, convicted of three counts of assault by penetration, six counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of making a threat to kill against three separate complainants.
- •Appellant deceived complainants by presenting as a man while using a strap-on dildo during sexual encounters.
- •Appellant had a history of challenging behaviour, multiple social care placements, and mental health issues including gender dysphoria, personality disorders, and potential ADHD or ASD (diagnoses disputed).
- •Appeal concerned sentence (10 years imprisonment + 3-year extended licence) and the admissibility of fresh medical evidence.
- •Fresh evidence included reports from various psychologists and psychiatrists, and witness statements from prison staff.
- •Issues raised: excessiveness of sentence, impact of gender dysphoria on culpability, judge's consideration of acquittals, impact of mental disorders and prison difficulties on sentence, and the judge's findings regarding vulnerability, planning, and dangerousness.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal.
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Sentencing offenders with mental disorders.
Sentencing Council’s Overarching guideline on “Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments”
Totality principle in sentencing.
Case law implicitly referenced throughout sentencing discussion.
Extended sentence legality.
R v Leitch and others [2024] EWCA Crim 563
Consideration of previous convictions in sentencing.
Implicitly referenced throughout sentencing discussion.
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
Unlawful statutory surcharge quashed; remainder of sentence upheld.
Fresh evidence admitted.
Evidence deemed believable, potentially relevant to appeal, admissible, and with reasonable explanation for non-adduction at trial.
Appellant's culpability not reduced by gender dysphoria or mental disorders.
Insufficient connection between disorders and offending behaviour; deceit and violence were not mitigated by these factors.
Judge's assessment of vulnerability, planning, and dangerousness upheld.
Findings supported by evidence; court declined to interfere with trial judge's assessment of facts.