R v BJE

R v BJE

There was no ambiguity or overlap between the conduct admitted in the 2007 caution and the conduct charged in counts 5 and 6; the distinction between touching and masturbation was clear and agreed by counsel. The jury's verdicts were rational given statutory changes and evidence evaluation. No grounds for appeal exist.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: BJE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Inconsistent Verdicts, Bad Character Evidence
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Inconsistent Verdicts Bad Character Evidence

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

BJE

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction on counts 5 and 6 was unsafe due to overlap with conduct subject to 2007 caution
  2. 2 Whether jury reached inconsistent verdicts on counts 5 and 6 versus counts 11 and 12

Ratio Decidendi

There was no ambiguity or overlap between the conduct admitted in the 2007 caution and the conduct charged in counts 5 and 6; the distinction between touching and masturbation was clear and agreed by counsel. The jury's verdicts were rational given statutory changes and evidence evaluation. No grounds for appeal exist.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against conviction refused