R v BD 2025
BD, aged 64, was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The offences included: voyeurism (secretly recording his stepdaughter in the shower when she was 11), taking indecent photographs of a child, two counts of sexual assault, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, two counts of assault by penetration, and two counts of rape.
BD had been the stepdaughter's stepfather since she was 4 years old and was married to her mother. The child had referred to the applicant as "Dad". BD's defence was that the sexual offending had not happened at all. Images of young children were found on BD's computer, which were admitted as evidence of propensity or interest in young Thai girls.
On 1 August 2024, BD was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with 15 years for each of the rape offences. The single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The case came to the Court of Appeal as BD renewed his applications for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.
BD argued that for certain offences (counts 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9), the judge did not direct the jury with sufficient force and clarity to consider both whether they were sure the sexual activity happened and that the victim did not consent and the applicant did not reasonably believe she had consented. BD submitted that the admission of images of young children found on his computer was improper as there was no expert or other evidence to show he had used the search engine to look for those terms. Regarding sentence, the applicant argued that it was wrong for the judge to find there was an abuse of trust, contending that a stepfather-child relationship cannot automatically be assumed to involve a relationship of trust. BD further claimed that the length of the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Held
Appeal dismissed.The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Court determined that BD's convictions were not arguable unsafe due to the judge's directions to the jury, and that the judge was entitled to admit evidence of images found on BD's computer. Regarding sentence, the Court rejected arguments that there was no abuse of trust in the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship, and found that the 15-year concurrent sentences were "perfectly proper and just" and not even arguably manifestly excessive given the multiple serious offences committed.
The Court found that the judge had directed the jury correctly on the relevant elements of the offences and that the prosecution had to prove various elements. The Court concluded that the judge appropriately focused the jury on the central issue of the case: whether the stepdaughter was fabricating the allegations or whether the jury was sure the stepfather had committed the offences. While acknowledging that different judges might have summed up differently or more fully, the Court held that the directions given did not render the convictions unsafe. Regarding the admission of images found on BD's computer, the Court ruled the judge was entitled to admit this evidence, and it was for the jury to assess its relevance in determining whether BD committed the charged offences. On the abuse of trust issue, the Court examined the specific facts of the case: BD was the victim's stepfather from when she was 4 years old, lived in the same house, and was called "Dad" by the child. The Court found it was "simply not possible to suggest" that the stepfather was not in a position of trust. The Court approved the judge's sentencing approach of taking the rape as the most serious offence, imposing an appropriate sentence for that and all other offending, and making other sentences concurrent.
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.
