Bridger, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for an extension of time of 6 days to make renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, following refusal by a single judge. The applicant was convicted on 4 October 2023 in the Crown Court at Bournemouth after a retrial before His Honour Judge Pawson and a jury, on two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of assault by penetration. On 14 November 2023, the applicant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising 12 years custody and 2 years extended licence, on one rape count, with concurrent determinate sentences on the other counts and on a separate Bail Act offence admitted by the applicant. The Bail Act offence related to the applicant removing his electronic tag and absconding after the jury retired to deliberate.

The complainant, referred to as C, was a middle-aged woman employed by a company arranging carers for elderly people. On 7 July 2022, she attended an appointment at the address of the applicant’s elderly mother, who was hospitalized, to discuss care arrangements. Although she expected the applicant’s sister to attend, the applicant was alone and informed her the sister could not attend. During the assessment, the applicant appeared angry and made unpleasant comments. After the assessment, the applicant forced C into the house and subjected her to multiple sexual assaults, including digital penetration, oral sex, and anal rape. C was terrified and complied with his commands. She later reported the matter to the police.

The applicant’s defence was that the meeting was amicable, that sexual activity was consensual, and that C was an enthusiastic participant. The applicant’s sister testified that the meeting appeared relaxed and amicable over a speaker phone call during the assessment.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, including alleged errors in the judge’s directions on inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the summing-up of evidence, and the judge’s response to a jury note. The court considered these grounds and the submissions from the applicant’s pro bono counsel, Mr Burton.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and whether this undermined the safety of the conviction.
2. Whether the judge’s summing-up of the complainant’s evidence was inadequate or inaccurate, particularly regarding inconsistencies and timing of accounts.
3. Whether the summing-up of the applicant’s sister’s evidence was deficient.
4. Whether the judge’s response to a jury note requesting reminders of specific evidence was inadequate, resulting in unfairness.
5. Whether the custodial term of 12 years and the imposition of an extended sentence were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge’s directions on inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence were flawed and favoured the prosecution.
• The summing-up inadequately summarized key inconsistencies and timing differences in the complainant’s accounts, potentially misleading the jury.
• The judge’s response to the jury’s note on evidence related to oral sex was unfair by not reminding the jury of the applicant’s evidence on this matter.
• The custodial sentence of 12 years was excessive, and the extended sentence was wrongly imposed given the applicant’s age and circumstances, suggesting the offending was a single aberration linked to stress.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s directions on inconsistencies were standard, balanced, and appropriate to prevent jury assumptions based on myths or stereotypes.
• The summing-up fairly and adequately addressed inconsistencies, leaving factual determinations to the jury without undue influence.
• The judge’s handling of the jury note was within judicial discretion and did not cause unfairness, as the jury had access to the applicant’s interviews and cross-examination was highlighted.
• The sentence was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offences, the sustained and terrifying nature of the assault, and the risk the applicant posed to the public.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Ayo [2022] EWCA Crim 1271	Guidance on findings of dangerousness and sentencing discretion	The court found the judge’s remarks tailored to the facts and offender complied with the guidance, justifying the dangerousness finding and extended sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the grounds of appeal against conviction by reviewing the judge’s directions and summing-up in detail. It found the directions on inconsistencies were standard, balanced, and designed to prevent jurors from making assumptions based on stereotypes, which was important in sexual offence cases. The court emphasized that inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts could be explained by trauma or fabrication, but it was ultimately a jury question. The summing-up was found to be fair, with appropriate safeguards instructing the jury to disregard any comments with which they disagreed and to give weight to matters they considered important.

The court noted that although the appellant’s counsel elaborated on alleged inadequacies in the summing-up, the judge’s directions sufficiently addressed these points, and there was no real danger the jury would be misled. The court also highlighted that no complaint was made to the judge about the summing-up at trial, and the defence had the opportunity to address these issues in closing submissions.

Regarding the evidence of the applicant’s sister, the court agreed with the single judge that her evidence was peripheral and did not materially affect the prosecution or defence case, and was appropriately summarized.

In response to the jury note, the court found the judge’s handling was proportionate and fair, within judicial discretion, and did not cause unfairness, especially as the jury had access to relevant materials and cross-examination had been emphasized.

On sentencing, the court rejected submissions that the custodial term was manifestly excessive or that an extended sentence was wrong in principle. The sentencing judge had the advantage of observing the applicant and was entitled to consider aggravating features such as the sustained nature of the assault, efforts to conceal evidence, premeditation, and psychological harm to the victim and her family. Mitigating factors were afforded little weight in light of the seriousness of the offending.

The finding of dangerousness was justified by the nature and circumstances of the offences and the risk posed to women. The judge’s decision to impose an extended sentence, rather than a determinate one, was a matter of judicial discretion and not erroneous in principle.

Holding and Implications

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

The convictions were held to be safe, and the sentence was upheld as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The refusal of leave means the applicant’s convictions and extended sentence remain in force. No new precedent was established by this decision; it affirms the proper application of existing principles regarding jury directions, evaluation of inconsistencies, judicial discretion in responding to jury queries, and sentencing for serious sexual offences involving multiple counts and extended sentences for dangerous offenders.