Bancroft, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, aged 71, was convicted after a Crown Court trial of multiple sexual offences including oral and vaginal rape and meeting a child following sexual grooming. The indictment contained 38 counts against the applicant and two against a co-accused, who was his brother-in-law. The prosecution case involved allegations of sexual exploitation of vulnerable young females primarily via a social media app, with the applicant using fake identities to arrange sexual encounters and involving third parties in some cases.

The applicant pleaded guilty to 30 offences in two tranches during the trial and contested five counts involving two complainants referred to as C1 and C2. C1 alleged grooming and multiple incidents of vaginal and oral rape, while C2 alleged grooming and attempted sexual activity which she refused.

The trial judge sentenced the applicant to extended determinate sentences on the lead counts and concurrent sentences on others. Applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence were refused by a single judge but renewed and heard by the Court of Appeal. The appeal hearing was adjourned initially due to incomplete procedural steps and later resumed with further submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude parts of the prosecution's Timeline bundle, which contained extensive evidence including messages and other material relating to the applicant's conduct with various young females.
2. Whether the summing-up directions to the jury were inadequate in guiding them on the relevance of the disputed evidence and the issues of consent and grooming.
3. Whether the applicant's convictions are unsafe due to alleged failures by trial counsel to promptly apply for discharge of the jury after guilty pleas.
4. Whether the overall custodial sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, including the categorisation of the offences and the weight given to mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge wrongly refused to exclude large parts of the Timeline bundle, allowing the jury to consider irrelevant and highly prejudicial material.
• The summing-up failed to properly direct the jury on what evidence was relevant to the counts before them, risking unsafe convictions.
• Trial counsel failed to promptly apply for discharge of the jury after the applicant's guilty pleas, potentially prejudicing the applicant's right to a fair trial.
• The sentencing was manifestly excessive, with the judge miscategorising the seriousness of the offences and failing to adequately consider mitigating factors such as age, good character, and remorse.

Respondent's Arguments

• All material in the Timeline bundle remained relevant to the contested counts, particularly regarding grooming, consent, and the applicant’s state of mind.
• The trial judge correctly applied the legal provisions relating to bad character evidence and fairly balanced relevance against prejudice.
• The applicant made a fully informed decision not to apply for discharge of the jury, instead opting to seek editing of the Timeline bundle.
• The sentencing judge appropriately categorised the offences within the guidelines, properly considered mitigation, and the overall sentence was just and proportionate given the prolific and serious nature of the offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analyzed the legal principles governing admissibility of evidence, particularly bad character material under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It affirmed that the Timeline bundle was relevant to the contested issues of grooming, consent, and the applicant’s state of mind. The trial judge’s decision to refuse exclusion, with only limited pruning, was deemed reasonable and not so deficient as to render the convictions unsafe.

The court also considered the adequacy of the jury directions. It found that the summing-up properly identified the relevance of the disputed material and contained necessary warnings against convicting based solely on bad character or emotional response. The directions were clear and sufficient, providing the jury with appropriate guidance.

Regarding the application to amend grounds of appeal out of time, the court refused leave for the ground relating to failure to apply for jury discharge, as the applicant had made a fully informed decision not to pursue this. Leave was granted for a related ground concerning jury directions on disputed material.

On sentencing, the court reviewed the judge’s categorisation of the offences and assessment of harm and culpability. It upheld the classification of the rape offences as category 2A, noting the applicant’s exploitative conduct and the particular vulnerability of the complainant. The court accepted the judge’s assessment of mitigation and the principle of totality in sentencing, concluding the overall sentence was just, proportionate, and not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, concluding there was no arguable basis to challenge the safety of the convictions.

The Court also refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding the sentencing approach and outcome appropriate given the seriousness and extent of the offending.

The direct effect of the decision is to uphold both conviction and sentence. No new precedent was established, and the ruling confirms the proper application of established principles regarding bad character evidence, jury directions, and sentencing assessment in complex sexual offence cases involving multiple complainants and counts.