BDZ v R (Indictment misstating age of child victim of sexual offences)

A date in an indictment is not ordinarily essential unless time is an element of the offence or the date has another material significance. An inaccurate date will not make a conviction unsafe where the date is immaterial, the jury considers every relevant element, and the error causes no adverse consequence to the defendant. The position may differ where an error withdraws an essential issue from the jury or creates uncertainty about what the jury decided, including in some cases involving specimen and specific counts. The assessment is count-specific and fact-sensitive.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Preston of 11 sexual-offence counts concerning his stepdaughter. Counts 1–5 alleged offences against a child under 13. Counts 6–11 alleged general offences under sections 2 and 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with particulars stating that the victim was aged 13 and giving date ranges beginning on her thirteenth birthday.

The appellant argued that the convictions on counts 6–11 were unsafe because the victim’s evidence was that all offending had stopped before her thirteenth birthday. A contingent challenge to the remaining convictions and sentence was also advanced.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal on the referred ground, but held that the convictions on counts 6–11 were safe. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
2. For counts 6–11, the victim’s age was not an element of the offences. The prosecution nevertheless had to prove lack of consent and lack of reasonable belief in consent. The trial judge incorrectly directed the jury that the offences had to occur between the dates alleged, but the jury was directed to consider the actual elements, including consent.
3. The error did not withdraw any relevant issue from the jury. It left an irrelevant issue for the jury to consider. No adverse consequence flowed to the appellant. The date was therefore not a material averment for those counts, and the inconsistency between the evidence and indictment did not render the convictions unsafe.
4. The court emphasised the limited scope of its decision. A different result might follow where age is an essential element, or where dates matter to specimen and specific counts and create uncertainty about what the jury has decided. It was unnecessary to identify every situation in which an indictment-date error may affect safety.
5. The contingent ground concerning counts 1–5 and the sentence appeal did not arise because the conviction appeal failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court granted an extension of time and leave on the referred conviction ground, dismissed the appeal against conviction, and refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 10.
• Crown Court at Preston: The appellant was convicted on 7 June 2023 of 11 counts and received a 13-year special custodial sentence.