Defining the Scope of Caution Admissions: R v BJE ([2025] EWCA Crim 534)

Introduction

R v BJE ([2025] EWCA Crim 534) is a decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) delivered on 11 April 2025. The appellant, referred to as BJE, was convicted at Teesside Crown Court on two counts of indecent assault on a male child (C1), offences contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. He challenged those convictions on two main grounds: (1) that the trial judge ought to have withdrawn counts 5 and 6 from the jury because they overlapped with conduct admitted under a 2007 police caution—rendering the trial an abuse of process; and (2) that the jury’s verdicts on counts 5 and 6 were irrationally inconsistent with their inability to agree on counts 11 and 12, which alleged identical conduct at a later period. This judgment clarifies how admissions in a police caution should be construed, confirms the proper route to verdict under section 55 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, and establishes that no abuse of process arises where the admitted conduct is unambiguous in scope.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal refused BJE’s application for leave to appeal. On Ground 1, the court held that the scope of the 2007 caution was clear: BJE admitted one occasion of oral sex and multiple occasions of “touching,” but he expressly denied masturbating C1. There was no ambiguity in the caution documentation or interviews that would have rendered counts 5 and 6 (masturbation (“rubbing”)) an abuse of process. On Ground 2, the court explained that section 55 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 allowed a jury to convict on counts 5 and 6 (offences under the 1956 Act) and fail to agree on counts 11 and 12 (offences under the 2003 Act) where there was uncertainty as to the date of offending. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Jones v Whalley [2006] UKHL 41; [2007] 1 AC 63 – Established that an abuse of process arises if a defendant is tried for conduct already admitted under caution, unless there is clear distinction in scope.
R v W (Martyn) (unreported, 30 March 1999) – Guidance on jury directions where counts overlap and a defendant’s admissions under caution.
Rex v Mundle [2024] EWCA Crim 1289 – Affirmed the need for defence to seek specific directions if inconsistent verdicts are a ground of challenge.
R v G [2014] EWCA Crim 2508 – Considered inconsistent verdicts; noted that absent a specific direction, appellate intervention is unlikely.
Section 55, Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 – Provides that if a jury is sure an offence occurred during an indictment period but uncertain as to which statutory regime applies, it may convict under the regime carrying the lower maximum penalty.
Section 78, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Governs exclusion of evidence for unfairness (no application made at trial to exclude the caution evidence).
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 – Imposes lifelong anonymity for victims of sexual offences.

Legal Reasoning

Ground 1 (Scope of the Caution)
The appellant argued that counts 5 & 6 (masturbation/rubbing) were conduct already admitted under the 2007 caution and should have been withdrawn as an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal emphasized that no such submission was made at trial and no ruling was obtained, but proceeded to examine the record in fairness. The 2007 caution form and contemporaneous interview notes clearly recorded that BJE admitted one occasion of oral sex and multiple instances of “touching” C1’s penis, while denying any masturbation. C1’s own witness statement supported that distinction. There was therefore no ambiguity in the admissions and no overlap with the new allegations of “rubbing” (masturbation). In consequence, the trial judge correctly drew the jury’s attention to the different terminology, and there was no abuse of process.

Ground 2 (Alleged Inconsistent Verdicts)
Counts 5 & 6 covered August 2003–April 2004 (pre–Sexual Offences Act 2003) under the 1956 Act; counts 11 & 12 covered May 2004–October 2006 under the 2003 Act. The jury convicted on the earlier counts but failed to reach verdicts on the later counts. BJE argued that no rational jury could do so if they relied on the same witness, C1. The court explained that section 55 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 expressly contemplates such outcomes where the jury is sure an offence occurred during the overall period but unsure whether it fell before or after May 2004. The trial judge’s carefully drafted route to verdict allowed for conviction under the lower‐penalty regime if the jury could not agree on timing. No direction on consistency was sought at trial; the verdicts were rational within the statutory framework.

Impact

This decision provides clear guidance on:

How admissions recorded in police cautions should be construed at trial—courts will give effect to the precise language of admissions and contemporaneous explanations.
The necessity for defence counsel to raise abuse‐of‐process objections or inconsistent‐verdict submissions at trial if they wish to preserve those issues on appeal.
The proper application of section 55 VCRA 2006 in cases spanning the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, confirming that inconsistent verdicts across statutory regimes can be rational.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Police Caution: A formal warning offered by police as an alternative to prosecution when a suspect admits certain conduct.
Abuse of Process: A legal doctrine preventing courts from allowing prosecutions that would be unfair because of prior resolution of the same issues.
No Case to Answer: A submission that the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable jury to convict, requiring the judge to withdraw the case from the jury.
Section 78 PACE: Police and Criminal Evidence Act provision allowing exclusion of evidence if its admission would have an unfair impact on proceedings.
Section 55 VCRA 2006: Rule allowing a jury to convict under the lesser penalty statute if unsure of the precise date of offending when two regimes overlap.
ABE Evidence: Achieving Best Evidence interviews of vulnerable witnesses, often recorded to preserve reliability.

Conclusion

R v BJE reinforces that admissions in police cautions are construed strictly according to their recorded scope, and that distinctions in language (e.g., “touching” vs. “rubbing”) legitimately define what conduct was admitted. Defence counsel must secure rulings at trial if they wish to challenge overlap between caution admissions and indictment charges. The judgment also confirms the rationality of apparently inconsistent verdicts under section 55 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 when offences straddle different statutory regimes. Together, these principles will guide practitioners in structuring cautions, drafting indictments, and framing jury directions in sexual‐offence cases.