Introduction

In the recent decision of BLV, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 257, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has addressed a critical issue concerning the integrity of jury directions relating to the age of a complainant in child sexual offence cases. This Judgment arises from an appeal lodged by an appellant convicted on multiple counts involving sexual offences against his nephew. At the heart of the matter is an allegation that the complainant's age—a crucial element in establishing the offences under the Sexual Offences Act—was assumed without being adequately scrutinized by the jury. The case confronts ambiguities in the complainant's evidence, juxtaposing consistent parts of the testimony with contradicting details regarding the complainant’s age at the time of the incidents.

The appellant, aged 59 at the time of the offences, was originally convicted of 10 child sexual offences, with counts ranging from causing a child to watch a sexual act, to facilitating the child’s participation in sexual activities. The central legal debate concerns whether the jury was properly guided to evaluate conflicting age evidence in counts 3, 4, and 6, where the requirement that the complainant be under 13 was allegedly taken for granted.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case is multifaceted. On one hand, it recognized that the complainant’s evidence was inherently ambiguous regarding his age at key moments of the alleged offences. The court found that the jury was misdirected on counts 3, 4, and 6—regarding the complainant’s age—and that this had led to unsafe convictions on those counts. Accordingly, the court quashed the convictions for these specific counts.

However, the appeal’s second ground—arguing that errors in counts 3, 4, and 6 tainted the rest of the convictions—was rejected. The Court held that the problematic jury directions concerning the complainant’s age did not cross-contaminate the other convictions, which remained undisturbed. Consequently, while the appellant’s overall sentence was reduced from 12 years to an effective 5-year term (with adjusted concurrent sentences), only those convictions directly impacted by the misdirection were set aside.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment draws heavily on the principles established in R v BRB [2022] EWCA Crim 1202. In BRB, similar issues arose concerning the evidential basis for conviction; notably, a lack of evidence to support certain counts rendered those convictions unsafe. In both cases, the appellate courts scrutinized whether a jury could have validly concluded specific elements of the offence based on the evidence presented.

The appellant’s counsel compared the current case with BRB to argue that if inconsistent or insufficient evidence regarding a key ingredient (in this instance, the age of the complainant) can poison part of a conviction, then a ripple effect may undermine the entire verdict. However, the court distinguished the cases by noting that in BRB there was no evidence whatsoever to support the impugned counts, while here, despite the ambiguity surrounding the complainant's age, parts of his testimony did support a conviction.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning pivots on the strict application of statutory requirements under the Sexual Offences Acts. A cornerstone of the decision was that for offences under s.8 of the Act, the age of the complainant is an essential ingredient. The court scrutinized the judge’s directions to the jury, noting that while the overall instructions were clear regarding each count’s separate treatment, the specific issue of the complainant’s age—a determinative fact in counts 3, 4, and 6—was not adequately emphasized.

The legal reasoning further investigated the competing evidence within the complainant's Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview where he alternated between stating that the offending began at around age 11 or 12 and other moments indicating an age of 13 or older. The court observed that although the complainant’s broader recollections lent credibility to some of the convictions, the jury could not be presumed to have independently resolved the conflicting evidence regarding his age.

Importantly, the court ruled that the misdirection was confined solely to the counts where the complainant’s under-13 age was an essential element. Therefore, the failure was contained and did not compromise the validity of the jury’s determinations on the other counts which involved offences committed when the complainant was slightly older (13-15 years) and charged under s.10 of the Act.

Impact

This Judgment establishes a significant new standard regarding the evaluation of age evidence in child sexual offence cases. It underlines the necessity for precise jury directions, ensuring that jurors clearly appreciate the weight of age-related testimony, and are directed to consider conflicting evidence rigorously. Going forward, prosecutors and trial judges must be particularly cautious in how the complainant’s age and inconsistencies therein are communicated to juries.

The decision is poised to influence future cases by reinforcing that even a single ingredient of an offence—here, the precise age—cannot be presumed without explicit judicial direction. This ensures that convictions are not based on assumptions, but on robust, unequivocal evidence that meets the statutory standards required for sexual offences involving children.

Complex Concepts Simplified

One of the most challenging aspects of this case is the legal concept of an "essential ingredient" in an offence. Under the Sexual Offences Act, specific elements such as the age of the complainant are critical to establishing a charge. If the evidence for that element is ambiguous or if the jury is misdirected on how to interpret it, then any conviction relying on that element may be unsafe.

Another important concept is the “rolled-up” or aggregated treatment of counts by the jury. The ruling clarifies that if a jury adopts an "all or nothing" approach instead of examining each alleged incident separately, then even a minor misdirection or misunderstanding can lead to unsafe verdicts on individual counts.

Finally, the Judgment clarifies the difference between offenses charged under different sections (s.8 vs. s.10 of the Sexual Offences Act). Each section requires specific factual determinations—especially concerning the complainant’s age—and a careful separation is necessary when multiple counts are intertwined. This case illustrates that not all counts are affected equally by a misinterpretation of evidence.

Conclusion

In summary, BLV, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 257 marks a transformative moment in the law governing child sexual offences. The Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the convictions on counts 3, 4, and 6—due to insufficient or ambiguous evidence regarding the complainant’s age—underscores the critical importance of clear and accurate jury directions on essential elements of an offence.

While the remaining convictions were upheld, the case serves as a stern reminder that even a single overlooked inconsistency can lead to the unsafe conviction of charges where an element, such as the age of a complainant, is central. This Judgment will likely prompt considerable reflection in future trials and guidance for legal practitioners, ensuring that jury instructions leave no room for ambiguity regarding pivotal issues of evidence.

Ultimately, this decision reaffirms the commitment of the appellate system to uphold the standards of fairness and due process, ensuring that every conviction rests on fully established and correctly evaluated factual determinations.