BUV v Rex

Evidence that an alleged victim’s behaviour changed after sexual offending is not automatically inadmissible. It may be admitted where there is a concrete basis for treating the observed behaviour as relevant, including where the defence alleges a fabricated complaint. Such evidence will rarely assist substantially because people may react to sexual offending in many ways and later distress or disengagement may have other causes. If admitted, fairness may permit the opposing party to adduce evidence of apparently normal behaviour. The jury must be warned against stereotypical assumptions about rape and told that emotion or distress is not a reliable indicator of truth. On the facts, the evidence was admissible, the directions were sufficient and the conviction was safe.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of two rapes and one sexual assault contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment for the rapes.

The prosecution relied partly on evidence from the complainant’s father that she had changed after the alleged offending. The defence challenged the admissibility of that evidence and the adequacy of the jury directions concerning demeanour and emotional reaction. The appellant also relied on evidence that the complainant had appeared happy and behaved normally after the alleged offences. The central issues were whether the father’s evidence was admissible and whether, if admitted, the jury had been properly directed.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

1. Admissibility. Evidence of a complainant’s later distress or changed behaviour may be technically admissible where there is a concrete basis for treating it as relevant to an issue in the case. The defence alleged that the complaint was fabricated because of family hostility, underage drinking and an alleged scheme to coordinate statements and seek money. Those allegations supplied a concrete basis for the father’s observations. If accepted, they could support the inference that sustained disengagement from friends and school, and counselling, were less likely to have been staged.
2. The court applied the approach in R v Keast [1998] Crim LR 748 and R v Miah [2014] EWCA Crim 938. It agreed that this type of evidence is very rarely likely to assist a jury substantially. A child may disengage from friends or school for many reasons. There is no stereotypical victim or standard reaction to sexual offending.
3. Once the judge permitted evidence of changed behaviour, it was fair to allow the defence to adduce evidence that the complainant had appeared happy and behaved normally. The value of either body of evidence was doubtful, but the judge’s directions were sufficient. The jury were told to put aside assumptions about rape and that the presence or absence of emotion or distress was not a good indication of truthfulness. This was consistent with the development of the law recognised in R v M [2010] EWCA Crim 1578.
4. Alternatively, even if the father’s evidence had been inadmissible, the conviction would have been safe. His evidence was not independent in the circumstances alleged by the defence. There was also compelling contemporaneous evidence in the Snapchat messages and medical evidence consistent with penetration, with no evidence of the alternative cause suggested by the medical expert.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 327.
2. Snaresbrook Crown Court — Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of two rapes and one sexual assault on 23 May 2022. On 28 October 2022 he received concurrent 12-year sentences for the rape convictions.