BJE, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 534 (11 April 2025)

BJE, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 534 (11 April 2025)

There was no ambiguity or overlap between the conduct admitted in the 2007 caution (touching and a single incident of oral sex) and the conduct alleged in counts 5 and 6 (masturbation/rubbing). The jury was properly directed on the distinction, and the applicant's arguments were tactical and unsupported by the evidence. The verdicts were not inconsistent given the jury's possible findings and the application of section 55 of the 2006 Act. No error of law or unfairness arose.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 534
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: BJE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Cautions, Inconsistent Verdicts, Directions to Jury
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Cautions Inconsistent Verdicts Directions to Jury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

BJE

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions on counts 5 and 6 were unsafe due to overlap with conduct covered by a 2007 police caution
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 5 and 6 were inconsistent with their verdicts on counts 11 and 12

Ratio Decidendi

There was no ambiguity or overlap between the conduct admitted in the 2007 caution (touching and a single incident of oral sex) and the conduct alleged in counts 5 and 6 (masturbation/rubbing). The jury was properly directed on the distinction, and the applicant's arguments were tactical and unsupported by the evidence. The verdicts were not inconsistent given the jury's possible findings and the application of section 55 of the 2006 Act. No error of law or unfairness arose.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused