R v Ashley Boyce

An alleged serious and continuing jury-room irregularity, coupled with complaints that the trial judge withheld a jury note and failed to investigate the matter, was sufficiently arguable to justify leave to appeal on those grounds.

Bad-character evidence admitted through gateway G, and also gateway D, could be used for any relevant purpose. An old conviction remained admissible where it was relevant and formed part of a sequence of convictions. A distinct alternative offence could be left to the jury where acquittal on any one or more related counts activated it, provided the directions were ultimately clear and the verdict safe. A lead sentence may reflect the offender’s overall criminality, including concurrent offences.

After a trial at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the applicant was convicted of rape, sexual offences, assault, firearms offences, threats to kill and controlling a child subject to sexual exploitation. He received an extended sentence of 23 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.

He renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction grounds concerned alleged jury irregularities, admission of previous convictions, the route to verdict on count 15, and the trial judge’s dealings with a co-defendant. The sentence grounds challenged the finding of dangerousness and the length of the custodial term.

1. Conviction: jury irregularity. Time was extended because the requested extensions were short and were not the applicant’s fault. The allegations concerning an alarming and continuing altercation between jurors, the withholding of a jury note, and the judge’s earlier failure to direct an investigation because of lack of time were arguable. Leave to appeal was therefore granted on grounds 1 and 2.
2. Bad character. The evidence was plainly admissible through gateway G and was also admissible through gateway D. Once bad-character evidence is admitted through any gateway, it may be used for any purpose for which it is relevant. The judge was entitled to admit the 2009 sexual conviction despite its age and prejudicial features. It was relevant and formed the first part of a sequence of convictions properly placed before the jury. Ground 3 was unarguable.
3. Count 15. Although the trial contained some imprecision, the final route to verdict and oral clarification correctly directed that count 15 could be considered following an acquittal on any one or more of counts 5, 8, 9 and 10. The separate offence could therefore operate as an alternative to count 10 despite convictions on counts 5, 8 and 9. There was ample evidence, no technical objection, and no reason to regard the verdict as irregular or unsafe. Leave on ground 4 was refused.
4. Co-defendant’s representation. The judge’s remarks about the difficulties of dismissing counsel and representing oneself did not amount to undue pressure. The applicant suffered no unfair disadvantage. Ground 5 had no merit, and leave was refused.
5. Sentence. The finding of dangerousness was supported by the combined effect of the applicant’s previous convictions, the present offending and the Pre-sentence Report. The judge was entitled to treat count 3 as the lead offence and make its sentence reflect the overall criminality of the concurrent offences. An 18-year custodial term was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The renewed application was therefore allowed only on conviction grounds 1 and 2.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 19 February 2026, under [2026] EWCA Crim 256, extended time, granted leave to appeal against conviction on grounds 1 and 2, refused leave on the remaining conviction grounds, and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 18 August 2023, the applicant was convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to an extended sentence of 23 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.