KL, R. v

Under rule 14.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, offences may properly be joined as a series of similar offences where there is a sufficient nexus between them. A sufficient nexus is established where evidence on one count would be admissible on the trial of the other, although the rule is not confined to that situation.

Where such evidence is relevant, fairness may require the jury to determine the associated allegation rather than hear an unresolved and potentially prejudicial account of it. The appropriateness of consecutive sentences remains a matter of overall justice, assessed in light of the true character and context of the offending.

The appellant was convicted after a five-day trial before His Honour Judge Mayo of rape, burglary and battery. The complainant was his former long-term partner. She alleged that he raped her after she had stayed overnight at his home, and that he later burgled her home following the breakdown of their relationship.

The appellant contended that the rape and burglary counts should not have been joined in one indictment under rule 14.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011. He also challenged the total sentence of six and a half years, which included a consecutive 12-month sentence for burglary.

The central issues were whether the counts were properly joined and whether the burglary sentence should have been consecutive.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The counts did not have to be founded on the same facts. The relevant question was whether they formed part of a series of offences of the same or similar character within rule 14.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011.

2. The court applied the principle stated in Kray [1970] 1 QB 125, and approved by the House of Lords in Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29. A sufficient nexus for joinder is certainly present where evidence on one count would be admissible at the trial of another, though admissibility is not the sole possible basis for joinder.

3. The burglary evidence was relevant to the rape allegation. It explained why and when the complainant made her complaint, bore on the appellant's alleged harassment and controlling behaviour, and answered his case that the allegations had been fabricated while the relationship remained untroubled. It would have been impracticable and unfair to leave the jury with an unresolved allegation of burglary. The jury could not treat it as supporting the rape count unless sure that it had occurred. The counts were therefore properly joined, and no severance would have been justified.

4. The appeal against sentence was allowed. Although the judge had reasons for a consecutive burglary sentence, the burglary was highly unusual and was more properly characterised as harassment by a distressed former partner. In the particular context, including the appellant's age and good character, justice required the burglary sentence to run concurrently with the rape sentence. The total sentence was reduced from six and a half years to five and a half years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of making the burglary sentence concurrent: [2013] EWCA Crim 98.

• Crown Court — following a trial before His Honour Judge Mayo, the appellant was convicted of rape, burglary and battery and sentenced to a total of six and a half years.