R v BCG

The appellant was convicted by a jury of maintaining an unlawful relationship and exposing a child to an indecent film, but acquitted of other related charges. The appellant appealed against the convictions on the basis that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory, and sought leave to appeal against his sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the jury’s verdicts were legally sound, whether any jurors compromised or were overborne, and if the sentences imposed were appropriate.

The court found that the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent or unreasonable, despite the jury initially indicating a split on count 1. The court held that the jury’s final unanimous verdict on count 1 was reliable and that no juror had compromised or been overborne. Regarding the sentences, the court acknowledged that the sentence for exposing a child to an indecent film was harsh, especially considering the circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted, and the appeal allowed. The sentences were set aside, and in their place, the appellant was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment on count one, and twelve months imprisonment on count two, to be served concurrently.