R v BJK

R v BJK

The judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant’s previous allegations against other men because there was no evidential basis for confusion or transposition; the proposed questions were speculative and fell within the prohibition of section 41. The conviction is safe. The sentence was not manifestly excessive, but technical corrections to the sentence structure were required.

Parties
Respondent: REX; Appellant: BJK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted only to correct technical errors; otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeals, Disclosure, Cross Examination, Bad Character Evidence, Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Disclosure Cross Examination Bad Character Evidence Sentencing

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REX

Respondent

BJK

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding cross-examination of the complainant about previous allegations against other men under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to exclusion of such evidence
  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 there was no evidential basis for confusion or transposition; the proposed questions were speculative and fell within the prohibition of section 41. The conviction is safe. The sentence was not manifestly excessive, but technical corrections to the sentence structure were required.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Conviction upheld; appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • 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.