BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Begbie, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 289 (07 March 2025)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/289.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 289

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 289
CASE NO: 202402571 B4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT TEESSIDE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CROWSON T20227081

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
7 March 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS
MRS JUSTICE STACEY
MR JUSTICE DEXTER DIAS

____________________

REGINA

- v -

LEE ASHLEY BEGBIE


(1992 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act applies)

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Non-counsel application
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MRS JUSTICE STACEY:

  1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during the person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as a victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
  2. The matter comes before the court on an oral renewal application for leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time of 14 days in which to do so, following refusal by the single judge.
  3. On 30 May 2024 in the Crown Court at Teesside before His Honour Judge Crowson, the applicant (who was then aged 71) was convicted of three counts of rape committed in 2004 and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 19 years. The explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal was the disruption caused by his being moved from Durham to Northumberland Prison and the time it took for his solicitors to forward the appeal form for him to complete himself as a litigant in person.
  4. The original grounds of appeal were received on 11 July 2024, followed by further grounds on 2 August 2024 and 5 August 2024, citing inconsistencies in the evidence. Further submissions and letters have been received both before and after receipt of the Respondent's Notice and the single judge's decision, all of which have been considered carefully but which largely repeat the initial grounds.
  5. The facts are as follows. In 2019 the complainant, whom we shall refer to as C, disclosed to the police that he had been sexually abused by the applicant when he was a child. During his achieving best evidence interview on 30 May 2019, he said he had been raped by the applicant (then called Lee Dennison) three or four times over a three of four-month period in 2004 when he was aged 15. He described how he had met the applicant in the model aircraft shop that the complainant frequently went to after school and he was then invited to the applicant's house. The applicant invited him ostensibly because C had expressed an interest in cars, in order that he could look at and work on the applicant's Lotus. The applicant subsequently raped the complainant at his house on that occasion (count 1) and on at least two other occasions (counts 2 and 3). The complainant described the layout of the house where the rapes had taken place and the furniture in the rooms.
  6. At trial the prosecution relied on a number of strands of evidence:
  7. The applicant gave evidence in his defence. His case was that there was no sexual contact between him and the complainant. The case was part of a deliberate campaign against him by Norfolk Police and that the allegations were false. The complainant and the other prosecution witnesses had been persuaded to tell lies in order to support the police's campaign against him. He had indeed met the complainant at the model shop but he denied giving him a lift in his car, and although he did have a Lotus vehicle, it was in 2008 and not 2004. The complainant had never been to his house, but he accepted that he had been to the complainant's parents' house and that he had gone on the complainant's family outing to the Go Ape amusement park in Thetford.
  8. The defendant relied on further evidence in support:
  9. The simple issue for the jury was whether the complainant was raped as alleged by the complainant what facts they could be sure of.
  10. There were a number of grounds of appeal:
  11. There is no merit in this proposed ground. The case was prosecuted by staff at the CPS offices in Chelmsford who had no dealings with the applicant's first solicitor. There is not a shred of evidence that any information was passed by his former solicitor to the prosecution. In any event the information about the layout of the applicant's house that the applicant said he had given to his solicitor was information that he himself introduced in the trial. It was neither confidential nor used by the prosecution. The evidence was in fact damaging to the applicant's own case since it confirmed the accuracy of the complainant's recollection as given at the ABEs.
  12. On close reading, this is not the case. Most of the points raised are not inconsistencies but simply the evidence. For example, that there was a photograph taken by the complainant's mother of the applicant with his arm around the complainant at the family outing at Go Ape.
  13. The inconsistencies, such as they were, were minor differences in some of the background evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. For example, whether it was the complainant's mother or his father who had driven the complainant home after his 21st birthday party when he was the worse for wear. Nothing turned on which parent it was who drove their son home. Another example is the complainant's mother's understanding that the applicant had worked at the model shop rather than being a frequent customer. Trial counsel has commented on both matters under the McCook procedure and explained why these were not strong points in the applicant's favour and why it would have been counterproductive to stress them before the jury at trial. For example, since the applicant accepted that he frequently went behind the counter in the model shop and would make tea, he could easily have been mistaken for an employee, thus corroborating the complainant's account of the applicant's presence in the shop with privileged status. The jury had all the points raised in this ground of appeal, as is evident from the judge's careful summing-up, which set out each of the points that might have helped his case that his counsel had diligently drawn to the jury's attention. Criticism of the conduct of his counsel is misplaced and has no merit.

  14. The criticism is misplaced however as the judge gave the standard approved directions to the jury to avoid stereotypes and common misconceptions in alleged sexual offences case. Nor can the judge be criticised for reminding the jury of the passage of time and how it might affect both sides. The offences were committed 21 years earlier than the date of trial and the judge was entitled to remind the jury that at the time the complainant described himself as a naive 15-year-old interested in model aeroplanes. The judge's directions were in accordance with the Crown Court Compendium guidance to judges.
  15. The second part of the criticism of the judge in ground 4 is of the judge's summary of the evidence as being biased and unfair. This ground too has no merit. The summary of the evidence was fair and balanced and faithfully summarised the evidence that had been given. The applicant's wife had indeed given evidence that the downstairs shower room was working in 2004 even though it had not yet been fully connected to the mains drainage which corroborated the complainant's account and the judge was entitled to summarise that part of the evidence for the jury. In effect this ground of appeal would have required the judge to ignore the evidence unfavourable to the applicant and only summarise the points that he considered were to his advantage.
  16. A number of further grounds of appeal and matters have been raised in the applicant's subsequent correspondence which the Court will now deal with.
  17. Sometimes where evidence is strong it may not take a jury long to decide their verdicts, especially if they have been concentrating carefully throughout the trial. But it does not mean that they have failed to follow the judge's direction. The jury had been properly directed in this case and told only to convict if they were sure on each count.
  18. This ground too is without merit. Jurors have different ways of absorbing and following the evidence in a trial. Trial counsel has confirmed that the jury were fully engaged and if he had noticed any jury misconduct, he would have immediately alerted the court, which was not necessary because none was observed. Prosecuting counsel and the judge, the clerk and the usher would also be expected to raise any observed jury issues and no issues were ever raised.
  19. He is mistaken on both aspects. His trial counsel has confirmed that the documents were indeed put before the jury and fully presented in his evidence, as is apparent from the applicant's own grounds of appeal. However, the difficulty for the applicant is that the evidence did not prove that he could not have committed the rapes. The document that recorded that the applicant had had a surgery to his urethra under anaesthetic and that he reported extreme pain with erections and on ejaculation is not determinative of his physical ability to commit the offences.
  20. We have considered each of the points raised by the applicant in his many letters to the court. None of them, whether taken separately or together, give rise to any arguable grounds that the convictions were unsafe. There was strong prosecution evidence on which the properly directed jury could be sure of the applicant's guilt on each of the three counts of rape.
  21. If there had been any merit in any of the grounds of appeal, we would have granted the short extension of time required to seek leave to appeal, but since there are no reasonable prospects of success in any of the grounds, it is not in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time. The applications are refused and we do not grant leave to appeal the convictions.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/289.html