BEF, R. v (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Crim 1362 (08 November 2023)

BEF, R. v (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Crim 1362 (08 November 2023)

The prior convictions related to sexual offences against an adult female, not a child, and the circumstances were starkly different from the offences charged. The similarities relied upon by the trial judge were insufficiently probative of a relevant propensity. The prejudicial effect of admitting the convictions substantially outweighed their limited probative value. The judge failed to properly assess the balance between probative and prejudicial effects. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1362
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant/defendant: BEF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed, convictions quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Sexual Offences, Propensity, Admissibility, Fairness of Proceedings
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Sexual Offences Propensity Admissibility Fairness of Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

BEF

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of bad character evidence (prior convictions) was correct under s101(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the prior convictions demonstrated a relevant propensity to commit offences of the kind charged
  3. 3 Whether the admission of such evidence had an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings under s101(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The prior convictions related to sexual offences against an adult female, not a child, and the circumstances were starkly different from the offences charged. The similarities relied upon by the trial judge were insufficiently probative of a relevant propensity. The prejudicial effect of admitting the convictions substantially outweighed their limited probative value. The judge failed to properly assess the balance between probative and prejudicial effects. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, convictions quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • Convictions quashed
  • Retrial ordered on all counts