Introduction

In R v AWG [2025] EWCA Crim 564, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the correctness and safety of convictions entered on specimen counts of sexual offences against a child under 13. The appellant, anonymised as “AWG” under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of multiple offences including assault by digital penetration, sexual assault by rubbing, and making indecent images of a child. The appeal turns on a material misdirection in the judge’s summing-up: specimen counts alleged “at least five occasions” but the jury were told to convict if sure of “at least one occasion” only. The Court was invited to quash convictions on the ground that this jury direction created a “lurking doubt” as to their safety.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Macur presiding, rejected the appeal. It held that:

• The misdirection to treat multi-occasion specimen counts as single-occasion counts did not render convictions unsafe on the facts of this case.
• The complainant’s evidence, video-recorded and subject to pre-trial cross-examination, was reliable and detailed enough to support the convictions.
• R v Hobson [2013] EWCA Crim 819 distinguishes cases where a specimen count covers indistinct occasions from those where specific incidents are combined. Here, the “at least five occasions” allegation described a general pattern rather than identifiable separate events.
• Sentencing should proceed on the basis that counts 1–3 reflect a single occasion of offending, reducing the quantity of conduct but not undermining its character or the jury’s acceptance of guilt.
• Permission to appeal was denied and the case remitted for sentence on the corrected basis.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment refers to several key statutory and case authorities:

• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 – imposes lifelong anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases unless lifted.
• Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 28 – governs pre-recorded cross-examination of child witnesses.
• R v Hobson [2013] EWCA Crim 819 – addresses jury directions in specimen counts and the need for unanimity on “the same occasion” when discrete incidents are wrapped into a single count.

In Hobson, the court held that where a specimen count comprises clearly separable incidents, a jury must unanimously agree on the same incident. By contrast, where a complainant alleges an indistinct pattern of repeated conduct, the jury need only be sure the conduct occurred at least once.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning proceeded through these steps:

1. Identify the error: The trial judge directed the jury on counts 1–3 to convict if sure of “at least one occasion” instead of “at least five occasions” as charged.
2. Assess the nature of the specimen counts: AWG’s indictment alleged repeated abuse in constrained domestic settings but did not anchor any single incident to a specific time or place beyond general references to multiple occasions.
3. Apply Hobson principles: Since occurrences formed a pattern rather than discrete episodes, the Hobson exception applied—no requirement for the jury to unite on a single identifiable incident.
4. Evaluate the safety of convictions: The complainant’s consistent disclosures, corroborated by video-interviews and corroborating evidence of indecent images, meant that—a proper direction being given—the only reasonable verdict would still have been guilty.
5. Determine sentencing impact: The only consequence of the misdirection was numeric. Counts 1–3 must now be treated as single-occasion offences, affecting guideline calculation but leaving the convictions intact.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment clarifies the application of specimen-count directions in sexual offence trials:

• Where a complainant cannot identify specific incidents and alleges a pattern of conduct, a judge may direct conviction on proof of at least one occasion.
• Where individual episodes are discrete and separable, the jury must agree on the same incident to convict under a specimen count.
• Failure to direct properly on the “same occasion” requirement will not always invalidate a conviction if the evidence leaves no realistic doubt about guilt.

Practitioners should ensure their draft summing-ups correctly reflect the nature of each count, and appellate courts will look to the overall integrity of the verdict before overturning a conviction for misdirection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Specimen Count: A single count in an indictment that represents multiple, similar alleged offences without specifying each incident in detail.
• Misdirection: An incorrect legal instruction given by a judge to a jury, which may undermine the fairness or safety of the verdict.
• Jigsaw Identification: Risk of identifying a complainant by piecing together partial information, hence the use of initials “AWG.”
• Unanimity Requirement: Jurors must agree on the specific conduct or incident that fulfils the statutory offence; in specimen counts of indistinct patterns, unanimity on a single occasion suffices.
• “Lurking Doubt”: A phrase denoting residual uncertainty about the correctness of a jury’s verdict, sometimes used to justify quashing convictions.

Conclusion

R v AWG [2025] EWCA Crim 564 affirms that jury directions in specimen counts must reflect whether the alleged offences form an indistinct pattern or discrete incidents. Where a complainant alleges repeated abuse without specific incidents, proof of a single occasion suffices. The Court of Appeal held that although the trial judge misdirected the jury on the frequency element, the conviction remained safe because the evidence left no real doubt about guilt. Sentencing must now proceed on a single-occasion basis for counts 1–3. The decision provides clear guidance for judges and advocates on drafting directions, safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the integrity of sexual offence trials.