BVY, R. v (Rev1)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns alleged sexual offences committed by the Appellant against two complainants, identified as C1 and C2. C1, born in December 2006, reported sexual assaults by the Appellant occurring between November 2016 and December 2017. C2, the Appellant's half-sister, alleged oral rape by the Appellant between July 2018 and September 2019. The Appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield on counts of sexual assault and rape of a child under 13. The jury reached unanimous verdicts on some counts but were unable to reach verdicts on others, which were ordered to lie on the file. The Appellant was sentenced to an overall term of 10 years' imprisonment, including a special custodial sentence with an extended licence period. The Appellant appeals against conviction by leave of the full court, focusing solely on whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit certain bad character evidence relating to C1 under s.100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence of C1 under s.100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on the issue of her credibility.
2. Whether the convictions on counts 1 and 4 are unsafe due to the exclusion of this evidence.
3. Whether, if convictions on counts 1 and 4 are unsafe, the conviction on count 5 is also unsafe due to cross-admissibility directions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicable test for admissibility under s.100(1)(b) was whether the bad character evidence would have a "bearing upon" or "affect" the worth of C1's evidence, citing R v Brewster.
• The trial judge failed to apply this test correctly and did not properly engage with the principles from Brewster.
• The bad character evidence consisted of statements made by C1 to a teacher a month before her allegations, which, if referring to medical procedures, were untrue and relevant to her credibility and propensity to lie about intimate body parts.
• Exclusion of this evidence denied the jury the opportunity to assess C1's credibility fully, rendering the convictions on counts 1 and 4 unsafe.
• Due to cross-admissibility, if counts 1 and 4 are unsafe, then the conviction on count 5 is also unsafe, as the jury might have reached a different conclusion on count 5.

Appellee's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the statutory test under s.100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires that bad character evidence must have "substantial probative value" related to a matter in issue and be of substantial importance to the case as a whole. The court considered the appellant's reliance on R v Brewster and related authorities, clarifying that the phrases "bearing upon" or "affecting" credibility denote mere relevance and do not satisfy the higher threshold of substantial probative value required for admissibility.

The court noted that the trial judge had properly applied this legal framework, evaluating whether the disputed school record evidence was reasonably capable of assisting the jury in assessing C1's credibility. The judge found the evidence to be of little probative value, characterizing it as vague, unclear in meaning, and insufficiently connected to the allegations to warrant admission. The court emphasized the fact-sensitive nature of this assessment and that the trial judge's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion, not Wednesbury unreasonable or legally erroneous.

The court also considered the overall context, including the detailed evidence given by C1, the defence's thorough cross-examination on credibility, and the timing and nature of the bad character evidence application. The short school record note was not deemed to add significant probative value beyond what was already explored in trial. The cogent and independent evidence of C2 further supported the safety of the convictions. Consequently, the court rejected the appellant's challenge to the judge's ruling and found no basis to treat the convictions as unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the convictions and sentence imposed on the Appellant. The court confirmed the proper application of the statutory test for admitting bad character evidence under s.100(1)(b) and reinforced the deference accorded to trial judges' evaluations of probative value. No new legal precedent was established beyond the clear reaffirmation of existing principles and their application to the facts of this case.