X & Anor v R

X & Anor v R

The trial judge was correct to refuse leave to cross-examine the complainant about subsequent incidents of alleged sexual behaviour, as the similarities were insufficient and lacked chronological nexus; the refusal did not render the jury's verdict unsafe. The sentences imposed, including the extended sentence for X, were justified given the severity and campaign nature of offending, except for certain counts where extended sentences were quashed and replaced with determinate terms due to statutory requirements.

Parties
Appellant: X; Applicant: Y; Respondent: REX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; limited leave to appeal against sentence granted in part; extended sentences quashed for certain counts and replaced with determinate terms; all other applications refused.
Legal Topics
Rape, Assault by Penetration, Sexual Assault, Coercive Control, Stalking, Witness Intimidation, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Sentencing Guidelines, Dangerous Offender Provisions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Rape Assault by Penetration Sexual Assault Coercive Control Stalking Witness Intimidation +4 more

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Appellant

Y

Applicant

REX

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the complainant about alleged prior sexual behaviour under section 41(3)(c) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to refuse leave to cross-examine the complainant about subsequent incidents of alleged sexual behaviour, as the similarities were insufficient and lacked chronological nexus; the refusal did not render the jury's verdict unsafe. The sentences imposed, including the extended sentence for X, were justified given the severity and campaign nature of offending, except for certain counts where extended sentences were quashed and replaced with determinate terms due to statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; limited leave to appeal against sentence granted in part; extended sentences quashed for certain counts and replaced with determinate terms; all other applications refused.

Orders

  • Extended sentences for counts 2, 3, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 quashed and replaced with determinate sentences matching original custodial terms.
  • Total sentence for X remains an extended sentence of 30 years (25 years custodial, 5 years extended licence).