BJK, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 667 (14 June 2024)

BJK, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 667 (14 June 2024)

The judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's previous allegations against other men because the proposed questions were speculative, lacked evidential foundation, and were primarily aimed at undermining credibility, thus engaging and being barred by section 41. The conviction was not unsafe. The sentence, though severe, was not manifestly excessive, but technical corrections were required regarding statutory references and the order of sentences.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 667
Parties
Respondent: REX; Appellant: BJK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted only to correct technical errors; otherwise, sentence appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Evidence, Cross Examination, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Sentencing, Appeals
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Cross Examination Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Sentencing Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REX

Respondent

BJK

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding cross-examination of the complainant about previous allegations of sexual abuse against other men under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of such evidence rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or technically flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's previous allegations against other men because the proposed questions were speculative, lacked evidential foundation, and were primarily aimed at undermining credibility, thus engaging and being barred by section 41. The conviction was not unsafe. The sentence, though severe, was not manifestly excessive, but technical corrections were required regarding statutory references and the order of sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted only to correct technical errors; otherwise, sentence appeal refused.

Orders

  • Declare that the sentence on Count 9 was a Special Custodial Sentence of 10 years, pursuant to section 278 Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of 9 years and a further 1 year licence period.
  • Direct that the determinate sentence should be imposed first, with the extended sentence being ordered to run consecutively to the determinate sentence.