R v John Edward Bancroft

After guilty pleas are entered during a trial, evidence previously deployed on the pleaded counts may remain admissible on the counts left for decision. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101, evidence capable of showing a similar exploitative methodology may be relevant to consent and reasonable belief in consent, provided that unfair prejudice is properly addressed by editing where necessary and clear jury directions.

On a conviction appeal, the material question is whether any alleged deficiency in evidential rulings or directions arguably undermines the safety of the verdict. Sentencing for numerous offences requires an evaluative application of totality, not an arithmetic accumulation of individual terms. Appellate intervention depends on an error producing a manifestly excessive overall sentence.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of four rapes and an offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. He had also pleaded guilty to 30 further offences involving child sexual exploitation, sexual services, indecent images and assault. He received concurrent extended determinate sentences of 25 years on the rape counts, comprising 22 years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.

He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction challenge concerned a substantial Timeline bundle, containing communications and other material relating to the admitted offending and other young women. The central issues were whether that material should have been excluded or more closely directed, and whether the total custodial term was manifestly excessive.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. It also refused leave to add the proposed ground that trial counsel should have sought discharge of the jury. Counsel’s note showed that the applicant had made an informed decision to retain the jury and seek editing of the Timeline instead. Leave was granted to advance the closely related complaint about the adequacy of the directions.

2. Following the earlier adjournment, the court had ensured that the required procedure for a complaint concerning trial counsel was completed: see James [2018] EWCA Crim 285. The further material provided no basis for the proposed complaint.

3. The trial judge had correctly applied Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101. The applicant’s guilty pleas and the underlying communications were capable of being relevant to consent, reasonable belief in consent, and, in relation to the child-grooming count, reasonable belief as to age. The jury could properly regard similarities in the applicant’s dealings with other young women as capable of supporting the prosecution case that his conduct towards C1 was exploitative and manipulative.

4. The court held that the judge had carefully considered relevance and fairness. Any arguable debate about individual documents did not show that the ruling rendered the convictions unsafe. Agreed facts would have been an inadequate substitute. The summing-up clearly identified the possible relevance of the disputed material and included sufficient safeguards against conviction based wholly or mainly on bad character or emotional reaction.

5. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The category 2A assessment of the rapes was open to the judge, including because C1 was particularly vulnerable through her personal circumstances. The judge had properly considered mitigation. Applying totality, the 22-year custodial term for prolific, persistent and far-reaching offending was not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2024] EWCA Crim 1393, refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It refused leave to add one late conviction ground and permitted amendment to add the related directions ground.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook On 13 December 2021, the applicant was convicted of four rapes and meeting a child following sexual grooming, having pleaded guilty to 30 further offences. On 22 February 2022, he received concurrent extended determinate sentences of 25 years on the rape counts, comprising 22 years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.