BQL & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 561 (11 February 2025)

BQL & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 561 (11 February 2025)

The trial judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the evidence was capable of showing that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication, and by treating independent evidence solely as undermining the prosecution case. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find lack of capacity, and the judge's ruling of no case to answer was not reasonable. The rulings are reversed and the proceedings may be resumed.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 561
Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: BQL; Respondent: AKO
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's rulings reversed; proceedings to be resumed and retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Consent, Capacity to Consent, Sexual Offences, No Case to Answer Submission, Judicial Error, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Consent Capacity to Consent Sexual Offences No Case to Answer Submission Judicial Error Appeal Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

BQL

Respondent

AKO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer on charges of kidnapping, rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault where the complainant was intoxicated
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find lack of capacity to consent due to intoxication
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the Galbraith test for no case to answer

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the evidence was capable of showing that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication, and by treating independent evidence solely as undermining the prosecution case. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find lack of capacity, and the judge's ruling of no case to answer was not reasonable. The rulings are reversed and the proceedings may be resumed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's rulings reversed; proceedings to be resumed and retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Judge's rulings of no case to answer reversed
  • Proceedings against both accused may be resumed in the Crown Court