R v BSH

R v BSH

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against preliminary rulings in Court Martial proceedings under Rule 50(1) of the Armed Forces Court Martial Rules 2009. The messaging between BSH and Z constituted direct evidence of admissions of sexual activity with C, and a properly directed Board could infer guilt. The Judge Advocate General erred in dismissing the charges on the basis that the messaging could be mere 'laddish hyperbole', as this was a factual issue for the Board to determine.

Parties
Applicant: Service Prosecuting Authority; Respondent: B. S. H.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Dismissal Prior to Arraignment
Outcome
leave to appeal granted; ruling of Judge Advocate General quashed; charges against BSH to proceed in Court Martial
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Position of Trust, Court Martial Procedure, Appeal Jurisdiction, Sufficiency of Evidence
Criminal Law Military Law Sexual Offences Position of Trust Court Martial Procedure Appeal Jurisdiction Sufficiency of 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Service Prosecuting Authority

Applicant

B. S. H.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Dismissal Prior to Arraignment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Judge Advocate's dismissal of charges at a preliminary stage in Court Martial proceedings?
  2. 2 Was the Judge Advocate General correct in ruling that the evidence was insufficient for the case to proceed against BSH?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against preliminary rulings in Court Martial proceedings under Rule 50(1) of the Armed Forces Court Martial Rules 2009. The messaging between BSH and Z constituted direct evidence of admissions of sexual activity with C, and a properly directed Board could infer guilt. The Judge Advocate General erred in dismissing the charges on the basis that the messaging could be mere 'laddish hyperbole', as this was a factual issue for the Board to determine.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal granted; ruling of Judge Advocate General quashed; charges against BSH to proceed in Court Martial

Orders

  • The ruling dismissing the charges against BSH is quashed.
  • The charges against BSH will proceed in the Court Martial in the usual way.