Demeanour post alleged sexual offence
The recent case of R v BUV [2025] EWCA Crim 327 considered the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim’s apparent change in demeanour post the commission of alleged sexual offences.
Briefly, BUV was convicted at trial of two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault against his 14year old victim, all of which were alleged to have occurred on the same day. The defence was malicious invention because of family disapproval of BUV.
Despite firm objection by the defence, the trial judge permitted the prosecution to call the victim’s father to comment on his daughter’s altered demeanour post events.
On appeal, it was submitted on behalf of BUV that the victim’s father’s evidence was inadmissible, speculative and essentially, hearsay (relying on R v Keast [1998] Crim. L.R. 748, CA and R v Miah [2014] EWCA Crim 938).
The prosecution counter submitted that the father’s evidence regarding his daughter’s altered demeanour was admissible to rebut the defence case that the allegations were a malicious invention.
The prosecution further submitted the trial judge quite properly directed the jury regarding stereotypical assumptions, as is now common and in keeping with the guidance contained in the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1.
Dismissing the appeal, their Lordships reaffirmed that evidence regarding demeanour, when supported by ‘concrete observations’, can quite properly be left to a jury.
Their Lordships recognized that the emotional and psychological impact criminal offences have on a victim, especially in sex cases, can be significant and manifest in an altered demeanour post events.
It was, however, emphasised that ‘concrete observations’, supporting a victim’s altered demeanour were required to avoid assumptions and speculation.
Given the totality of the evidence, the convictions were considered safe and the appeal dismissed.
For further details: