R v BCZ 2025
BCZ's wife reported to police domestic incidents that occurred in the family home in Luton in November 2022. These reports resulted in four charges, including count 3 of child cruelty towards BCZ's 4-year-old son on 28 November 2022.
The prosecution alleged that BCZ wilfully assaulted his son by twisting his ear, causing pain likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury. The prosecution relied on evidence including the wife's testimony, a video showing the distressed child pointing at his ear, and BCZ's own admission that he pulled his son's ear to discipline him.
The defence argued that while the act occurred, it did not amount to wilful assault and was not done in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
On 4 October 2024, BCZ was convicted by a jury at Luton Crown Court of child cruelty (count 3) but acquitted of three other charges. He was sentenced to an 18-month conditional discharge on 9 December 2024.
BCZ appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds that the judge wrongly directed the jury on the ingredients of the offence of child cruelty. He contended that the conviction was unsafe because the jury was not directed that the defendant must have been reckless as to causing unnecessary suffering to the child or injury to the child's health, which the prosecution had to prove as an element of the offence contrary to section 1(1) of the 1933 Act.
Held
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
The Court of Appeal quashed BCZ's conviction for child cruelty under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, finding it unsafe due to inadequate jury directions.
The Court found it was common ground that the judge should have directed the jury about the men's rea for the offence, which included intention or recklessness as to the manner of the assault. The central issue was whether BCZ was aware of the risk that the manner of his assault would likely cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. He was never asked at trial whether he was aware of a risk that he would cause unnecessary suffering to his son by his actions, creating a gap in the evidence on a material issue. There was also a gap in the directions, as the jury never applied their mind to whether BCZ was aware of the risk of causing unnecessary suffering. These gaps could not be "plugged" on appeal, as doing so would usurp the function of a trial and the role of the jury. The Court decided it was unnecessary to resolve the interesting point of law regarding whether recklessness required both subjective and objective elements, as the conviction was unsafe even under the Crown's legal approach.
The Court determined that the failure to address the recklessness element of the offence constituted a material misdirection that rendered the conviction unsafe, as the jury never had the opportunity to consider this essential element of the offence.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.