Rex vs BJK

This case involved an appeal against conviction and sentence for serious sexual offences committed by the appellant, BJK, against two complainants.

TLDR:

• BJK was convicted of 11 serious sexual offences against two complainants.
• The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on several grounds.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but made adjustments to the sentence.

The appellant, BJK, was convicted in the Crown Court at Lewes of 11 offences of serious sexual offending against two complainants, referred to as B and C, after a re-trial. The offences included sexual activity with a child, attempted sexual touching, and assault by penetration.

The trial judge sentenced BJK to a Special Custodial Sentence of 10 years for an offender of particular concern, comprising a custodial term of 9 years with a further 1-year licence period, and a standard determinate sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, consecutive. The aggregate sentence was 16 years.

BJK appealed against his conviction on three grounds, arguing that the trial judge had erred in excluding certain cross-examination questions under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The appellant also sought leave to appeal against the sentence if the conviction was upheld.

The Court of Appeal examined the factual background, including the relationships between BJK and the complainants, the nature of the offences, and the procedural history of the case. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied section 41 and that the exclusion of the cross-examination questions did not render the conviction unsafe.

The court also addressed technical issues related to the structure of the sentence. It declared that the sentence on Count 9 was a Special Custodial Sentence of 10 years, comprising a custodial term of 9 years and a further 1-year licence period, and directed that the determinate sentence should be imposed first, with the extended sentence running consecutively.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of correcting the technical errors.

Legal representatives: Andrew Selby KC (instructed by Bishop and Light Solicitors) for the Appellant, Sarah Lindop (instructed by Cps Appeals And Review Unit) for the Crown.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, and Mr Justice Choudhury.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 667