X & Anor v Rex [2025] EWCA Crim 883 (11 July 2025)

X & Anor v Rex [2025] EWCA Crim 883 (11 July 2025)

The judge was entitled to refuse leave to cross-examine the complainant about subsequent incidents as there was insufficient similarity and no sufficient chronological nexus to satisfy section 41(3)(c) YJCEA 1999. The refusal did not render the conviction unsafe. The sentence imposed was justified given the seriousness, pattern, and impact of the offending.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 883
Parties
Appellant: X; Applicant: Y; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; applications for extension of time and leave to appeal on further grounds refused; application to admit fresh evidence refused; renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Admissibility of Evidence, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Extended Sentences, Dangerous Offenders
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Admissibility of Evidence Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Extended Sentences Dangerous Offenders

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Appellant

Y

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave under section 41(3)(c) YJCEA 1999 to cross-examine the complainant about alleged previous sexual behaviour
  2. 2 Whether the refusal rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse leave to cross-examine the complainant about subsequent incidents as there was insufficient similarity and no sufficient chronological nexus to satisfy section 41(3)(c) YJCEA 1999. The refusal did not render the conviction unsafe. The sentence imposed was justified given the seriousness, pattern, and impact of the offending.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; applications for extension of time and leave to appeal on further grounds refused; application to admit fresh evidence refused; renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Sentence of extended imprisonment (30 years: 25 years custodial, 5 years extended licence) upheld