R v Gary Bridger

In a sexual-offence trial, a direction on inconsistencies may properly warn jurors against assumptions founded on myths and stereotypes, while leaving them to decide whether an inconsistency exists, its significance and its cause. A summing-up is fair if it makes clear that factual assessment is for the jury and that they may take account of matters the judge has not emphasised.

A judge’s measured response to a jury question is a matter of discretion. It need not repeat the defendant’s evidence where the jury has the relevant material and has been adequately reminded of the competing case.

When sentencing multiple serious sexual offences, the judge may reflect the total criminality in the principal sentence. An extended sentence is available where the offending and offender establish a serious future risk that a determinate sentence would not adequately address.

Following a retrial in the Crown Court at Bournemouth, the applicant was convicted of two rapes, two sexual assaults and assault by penetration. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a two-year extended licence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences and an admitted Bail Act offence.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant sought a six-day extension to renew applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction grounds challenged the directions and summing-up on alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the treatment of defence evidence, and the response to a jury note. The sentence grounds alleged that the custodial term was manifestly excessive and that an extended sentence was wrong in principle.

1. The court granted the short extension of time but refused both renewed applications for leave to appeal. The delay was brief, satisfactorily explained and not attributable to fault by the applicant. The applications were therefore considered on their merits.

2. The conviction grounds disclosed no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe. The trial judge’s direction on inconsistencies accorded with the standard directions. It properly warned against unwarranted assumptions, including assumptions based on myths and stereotypes in sexual-offence cases. The jury alone had to decide whether the accounts were inconsistent, whether any inconsistency was material, and what explained it.

3. The summing-up did not unfairly minimise the defence case. It made clear that factual matters were for the jury, that they could reject any judicial comment, and that they could give due weight to an omitted matter. The judge had also identified the alleged inconsistencies during the summing-up. There was no real risk that the jury would treat the judge’s assessment as prevailing over their own.

4. The response to the jury’s request for a reminder of parts of the complainant’s evidence was accurate, proportionate and fair. The judge was entitled to decline to repeat the applicant’s evidence. The jury had copies of his interviews and had been reminded of his case through the relevant cross-examination of the complainant.

5. The 12-year custodial term was not manifestly excessive. The judge was entitled to sentence by reference to the total criminality of two rapes, assault by penetration and sexual assaults, rather than treating the guideline range for a single offence as determinative. The multiple forms of violation, concealment of evidence, premeditation, psychological harm and other aggravating features justified the sentence. Previous good character and age carried little mitigating weight in offending of this gravity.

6. The finding of dangerousness and the extended sentence were lawful. The sentencing remarks were sufficiently tailored to the offending and offender to comply with the guidance in R v Ayo [2022] EWCA Crim 1271. The nature and circumstances of the offences supported the assessment of a high risk of serious harm, and the judge was entitled to conclude that a determinate sentence would not adequately manage that risk.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted a short extension of time, then refused renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence in [2024] EWCA Crim 1615.

• Crown Court at Bournemouth: Following a retrial, convicted the applicant on 4 October 2023 of two rapes, two sexual assaults and assault by penetration. On 14 November 2023, imposed an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a two-year extended licence.