Alexander, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves an applicant convicted of multiple sexual offences spanning from 2010 to 2022, including rape, sexual assault, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The applicant was convicted on 11 April 2023 at the Crown Court at Wood Green and sentenced on 23 June 2023 to an extended custodial sentence. The offences involved three complainants identified as C1, C2, and C3, with incidents occurring in various locations such as a block of flats, an electricity cupboard, and public streets.

The applicant was acquitted on one count and a not guilty verdict was entered on another. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences on multiple counts with an extended sentence of 17 years on the lead count. The applicant challenged the admission of bad character evidence, the conduct of the trial, and the sentence imposed. The single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and the applicant renewed these applications before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the admission of bad character evidence, including a 2016 rape acquittal and previous exposure convictions, was lawful and appropriate.
2. Whether the Crown was entitled to re-open its case to call additional evidence regarding the nature of the exposure convictions.
3. Whether the judge erred in giving legal directions to the jury without allowing defence counsel to review the final version.
4. Whether the judge misdirected the jury regarding delay and the applicant's failure to give evidence.
5. Whether the judge should have discharged the jury following a misdirection concerning exposure evidence.
6. Whether the judge misdirected the jury on the application of bad character evidence and cross-admissibility in multiple complainant cases.
7. Whether the judge failed adequately to direct the jury on the element of reasonable belief in consent.
8. Whether inaccuracies in the factual summing-up unfairly prejudiced the applicant.
9. Whether the judge adopted an unfair approach by refusing all defence applications and granting all prosecution applications.
10. Whether the sentence imposed, particularly the uplift on the lead count and the extended sentence, was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The admission of bad character evidence, including the 2016 acquittal and exposure convictions, was improper due to prejudicial effect, remoteness, and lack of relevance.
• The Crown's re-opening of its case to introduce evidence about masturbation in exposure offences was irrelevant and prejudicial.
• The judge gave unseen legal directions to the jury, denying the defence proper opportunity to review them.
• The judge misdirected the jury on the issue of delay and the applicant’s decision not to give evidence, potentially prejudicing the defence.
• The judge erred in not discharging the jury after misdirection about exposure evidence, including erroneous reference to a public park.
• The judge misdirected the jury on bad character evidence and cross-admissibility, including shifting the burden of proof.
• The judge failed to properly direct the jury on reasonable belief in consent, despite the applicant’s defence claiming enthusiastic consent.
• There were inaccuracies and omissions in the factual summing-up that undermined the applicant’s case.
• The judge showed bias by refusing all defence applications and granting all prosecution applications.
• The sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly the 14-year custodial term and extended sentence, which could have been managed in the community.

Respondent's Arguments

• The bad character evidence was properly admitted due to strong similarities between prior incidents and the offences charged, demonstrating propensity.
• The re-opening of the Crown case was a narrow correction and did not prejudice the defence.
• Any technical issues with legal directions were minor and did not affect fairness.
• The judge’s directions on delay and failure to give evidence were generous and appropriate.
• The judge corrected any misdirection regarding exposure evidence, and no prejudice arose.
• The judge’s directions on bad character and cross-admissibility were legally sound.
• The applicant’s counsel did not cross-examine on reasonable belief, and the judge’s directions were sufficient.
• There was no bias or factual inaccuracy of consequence in the summing-up.
• The sentence was justified given the applicant’s dangerousness and the seriousness of the offences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed review of the grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence, adopting the reasoning of the single judge. It found that the admission of bad character evidence, including the 2016 acquittal and previous exposure convictions, was lawful and relevant due to the striking similarities with the offences charged and the applicant's propensity to target lone females for sexual gratification. The court rejected the defence submissions that the evidence was prejudicial or irrelevant.

The court acknowledged a minor error by the prosecution in failing to mention masturbation in the exposure convictions initially, but held that permitting the Crown to re-open its case to correct this was appropriate and caused no prejudice. Issues regarding legal directions to the jury were addressed as technical glitches without substantive unfairness. The directions on delay and the applicant’s failure to give evidence were found to be generous and proper.

The court found no merit in claims of misdirection regarding bad character evidence, cross-admissibility, reasonable belief in consent, or alleged judicial bias. The factual summing-up was deemed accurate and balanced. Regarding sentencing, the court agreed with the judge’s assessment of dangerousness and the appropriateness of the extended sentence, rejecting arguments that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed applications for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the applicant’s convictions and the extended custodial sentence imposed. No new legal precedent was established. The court confirmed the proper admission of bad character evidence in cases involving sexual offences with multiple complainants and reinforced the appropriateness of extended sentences where the offender is found to be dangerous.