R v BD

Where the defence to alleged sexual offending is that the sexual activity did not occur, a judge may focus the jury’s attention on that central issue after directing them on the elements of the offence and the prosecution’s burden of proof. A fuller separate direction on consent and reasonable belief is not necessarily required where those issues were properly left to the jury and the direction did not displace the need to prove them. Computer images may be admitted as propensity or interest evidence without expert evidence establishing how they were obtained. A stepfather who has cared for a child from an early age may occupy a position of trust, making its abuse an aggravating feature. When sentencing for multiple offences, taking the most serious offence and making other sentences concurrent may be proper.

Following a trial in the Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter, including rape and assault by penetration. On 1 August 2024, he received concurrent sentences of 15 years’ imprisonment for each rape, with the sentences for the other offences also concurrent.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed applications concerning conviction and sentence. The conviction grounds concerned jury directions on penetration, consent and reasonable belief, and the admission of images found on his computer. The sentence grounds concerned abuse of trust and alleged excessiveness.

Renewed applications refused. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

1. Jury directions. The judge had directed the jury on the relevant elements of the offences and on the prosecution’s obligation to prove them. Although the directions focused on whether the alleged penetration or sexual activity had occurred, the evidence concerning lack of consent was available for the jury’s consideration. In the circumstances, it was not arguable that the directions made the convictions unsafe. A more elaborate summing-up might have avoided the application, but the Court’s task was to decide whether the convictions were arguably unsafe.
2. Computer images. The judge was entitled to admit images of young children found on the applicant’s computer as evidence relevant to propensity or interest. Expert evidence was not required to establish that the applicant had used a search engine to locate the images. Their relevance and weight were matters for the jury.
3. Abuse of trust. On the facts, the applicant had lived with and cared for the child since she was four, and occupied the utmost position of trust over her. That relationship properly aggravated culpability under the relevant sentencing guidelines.
4. Concurrent sentencing. The judge was entitled to treat the rape offences as the most serious, impose a sentence reflecting the overall offending, and make the remaining sentences concurrent. The sentence was proper and was not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1575.
• Crown Court. Following trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced on 1 August 2024. The judgment does not provide a citation for the Crown Court decision.