- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BGZ, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Crown prosecuted the Defendant for sexual offences involving a young family member. The victim, the Defendant's niece, was aged between 3 and 4 at the time. The victim disclosed to family members in May 2022 that the Defendant had sexually abused her, describing several different forms of conduct. Police interviews and an Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview were conducted; the victim gave accounts including references to a "kissing challenge", the Defendant licking the victim's underwear and the Defendant licking the victim's vagina.
The Defendant was tried on an indictment containing three counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. At trial before Judge Bennett and a jury in June 2025, the Defendant was acquitted on counts 1 and 2 and convicted on count 3. On 25 July 2025 the Defendant was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a rehabilitation activity requirement and notification requirements.
The Defendant applied for leave to appeal against conviction. The single judge referred the application to the full court, which heard the application on 24 June 2026.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the jury's mixed verdicts (acquittal on counts 1 and 2 but conviction on count 3), based on the same child's evidence, were inconsistent or logically irreconcilable such that no reasonable jury could have reached them.
- Whether the standard set out in R v Fanning and Others and the principles in R v Stone (as endorsed in R v Hunt) were satisfied so as to make an appeal against conviction arguable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The jury's verdicts were inconsistent or illogical: it was submitted that licking the victim's underwear (count 3) was inextricably linked to licking the victim's vagina (count 2), and therefore no reasonable jury could be sure of count 3 but not of count 2.
- The only direct evidence came from the young victim, whose accounts were closely related across the three counts, so the mixed verdicts could not be rationally reconciled.
Respondent's Arguments
- The counts did not stand or fall together; the jury were properly directed to consider each count separately and could rationally be sure of one incident of touching but not of the others.
- There were distinctions in the evidence as presented: count 3 (licking underwear) was an unprompted feature of early disclosures, whereas count 2 involved questions in the ABE interview that included leading questioning; such distinctions could explain divergent verdicts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Fanning and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 550; [2016] 1 WLR 4175 | Approach to allegations of inconsistent verdicts; sets a high hurdle for appellants seeking to show that mixed verdicts cannot stand. | The court applied the Fanning framework and concluded the appellant had not met the high threshold required to show the verdicts were unreasonable or irreconcilable. |
| R v Stone (unreported) (Devlin J) | Principle that the appellant bears the burden of showing that two verdicts cannot stand together because no reasonable jury could have arrived at them. | The court relied on Stone's principle as the proper burden allocation and assessment when considering alleged inconsistent verdicts. |
| R v Hunt [1968] 2 QB 433 | Endorsement of the approach in Stone regarding inconsistent verdicts. | The court noted Hunt's endorsement of Stone and treated those authorities as supporting the burden and approach applied in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by noting applicable reporting restrictions and that the judgment had been anonymised. It identified that evidence supported each count and there had been no submission of no case to answer for any individual count. The court emphasised the established legal approach to inconsistent verdicts, citing R v Fanning and Others and the Devlin J analysis in R v Stone (endorsed in R v Hunt), which places the burden on the appellant to show that no reasonable jury could have returned the mixed verdicts.
The court examined the judge's directions to the jury, highlighting the clear and careful instructions that each count be considered separately and that the jury must return separate verdicts. Applying those directions, the court concluded it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the evidence on one count (count 3) while not being sure of the other counts. The court noted material distinctions in the evidence: count 3 featured an unprompted allegation present from early disclosures, whereas count 2 involved questions in the ABE interview that included leading questioning. The jury could legitimately have treated those strands differently.
Having applied the Fanning threshold and the Stone burden principle to the facts, the court found that the appellant had not shown the verdicts were such that no reasonable jury could have come to them.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the Defendant's conviction on count 3 stands and leave to appeal is not granted. The court did not establish any new legal precedent; it applied existing authorities (R v Fanning, R v Stone, R v Hunt) and reaffirmed that, where a jury are properly directed to consider counts separately, they may reasonably be sure of one count and not others.
Alert