R v Leon Alexander

Evidence of an earlier rape allegation ending in an acquittal may properly be admitted where its similarities to the charged conduct give it substantial probative force. Previous exposure convictions may also demonstrate a propensity to target lone women for sexual gratification, despite the absence of physical contact in those earlier offences.

Where concurrent sentences are appropriate for multiple sexual offences, the sentence for the lead offence may be increased to reflect overall criminality. An extended sentence was justified by a continuing significant risk of serious sexual harm. A statutory surcharge imposed under an inapplicable charging regime is unlawful and must be quashed.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of two rapes, sexual assault, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. He received an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising 14 years’ custody and a three-year extension period.

After a single judge refused leave, he renewed applications to appeal against conviction and sentence. His proposed conviction grounds challenged the admission and use of bad-character evidence, trial-management rulings, jury directions, the summing-up, and the judge’s overall fairness. He also contended that the custodial term and extended sentence were manifestly excessive. The court additionally considered the statutory surcharge imposed at sentence.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The court independently considered the grounds and adopted the single judge’s reasons.

2. The trial judge was entitled to admit evidence concerning the 2016 rape acquittal. The similarities with the charged offending, including targeting women near blocks of flats, engaging them in conversation, moving them to seclusion, becoming physical when they tried to leave, and later contact, gave the evidence substantial probative force. The absence of the earlier video-recorded interview transcript did not demonstrate that material evidence was missing.

3. The four exposure convictions were capable of showing a propensity to target lone females in public and subject them to sexual acts for the applicant’s gratification. The lack of physical contact in those offences did not prevent that conclusion. The limited re-opening of the prosecution case to clarify masturbation, the corrected reference to a public park, and the challenged directions did not cause prejudice or render the convictions unsafe.

4. The sentencing judge correctly selected the 2022 oral rape as the lead offence and increased its sentence to reflect the totality of the offending while making the other sentences concurrent. Given the serious sexual attacks over many years and the applicant’s accepted dangerousness, the 14-year custodial term and three-year extension period were justified. The extended-sentence provisions properly applied.

5. The statutory surcharge was unlawful. The earliest relevant offence was committed in 2010, and the charging regime in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (No 2) Order 2007 did not apply. The surcharge order was quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, but quashed the unlawful statutory surcharge: [2024] EWCA Crim 705.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — The applicant was convicted on 11 April 2023 and sentenced on 23 June 2023 to an extended sentence of 17 years.