BLV v R

A conviction is unsafe where the evidence on an essential ingredient is mixed but the jury is wrongly directed that the ingredient is not in doubt. Evidence capable of supporting a conviction does not cure a direction which removes the necessary issue from the jury.

The setting aside of some convictions does not automatically undermine verdicts on other counts. The appellate court must assess whether the error was confined to those counts or indicates that the jury failed to consider the indictment count by count.

A retrial under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 depends on the interests of justice, including the passage of time, the evidential position and whether undisturbed convictions already address the conduct.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at the Crown Court at Preston of ten child sexual offences and received a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment. Counts 3, 4 and 6 alleged conduct when the complainant was under 13 and were charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

His appeal, lodged out of time, challenged those three convictions on the basis that the evidence did not establish the complainant’s age. He also contended that the resulting defect rendered all remaining convictions unsafe, relying on R v BRB [2022] EWCA Crim 1202. The central issues were whether the jury had been adequately directed on age and whether any error affected the other verdicts.

1. Disposition. The court granted a 204-day extension of time and leave to appeal on ground 1. It allowed that ground, quashed the convictions on counts 3, 4 and 6, and reduced the total sentence from 12 years to five years. It refused leave on ground 2; the convictions on counts 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 remained undisturbed.
2. There was evidence from which a properly directed jury could have found that the complainant was under 13 when the conduct in counts 3, 4 and 6 began. A submission of no case to answer would likely have failed. However, other evidence placed the conduct at age 13 or over. The evidence was therefore mixed on an essential ingredient of the offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
3. The jury needed clear directions to consider the competing evidence and to be sure of the complainant’s age for each of those counts. Instead, they were told that there was no doubt he was under 13 at the material time. That misdirection deprived them of the assistance necessary to determine the issue, so the three convictions were unsafe.
4. The error did not cross-contaminate the remaining verdicts. Unlike R v BRB [2022] EWCA Crim 1202, where there was no evidence at all on the impugned counts and thus no confidence that the jury had followed its directions, this error concerned one ingredient of three separate counts. It was self-contained and did not undermine the jury’s consideration of the other allegations.
5. Substitution of convictions under section 10 was inappropriate because the jury had already convicted the applicant of the corresponding conduct when the complainant was aged 13 to 15. Applying section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court held that a retrial was not in the interests of justice, given the elapsed time, the age-related evidential inconsistencies and the undisturbed convictions. No increase in the remaining sentences was sought under section 4.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2025] EWCA Crim 257, the court allowed the appeal on ground 1, quashed convictions on counts 3, 4 and 6, refused leave on ground 2, and declined to order a retrial.
• Crown Court at Preston. On 9 August 2023, the applicant was unanimously convicted of ten child sexual offences. On 12 October 2023, he received a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.