Court of Appeal quashes conviction for child cruelty

The Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction for child cruelty: BCZ [2025] EWCA Crim 1465.

Representing the appellant, Alex Benn appeared alone against Senior Treasury Counsel and junior.

The appeal concerned the mental state required to be proved for wilful assaults on children.

The appeal arose from a complicated trial, which had seen the appellant charged with three more serious offences against another person (of which he was acquitted by the jury). He was then convicted by a majority of a fourth offence, which concerned child cruelty.

On appeal, the arguments changed. Initially, the Crown argued that there had been no error of law. Then the Crown conceded that there had been an error of law but argued that that the conviction was nonetheless safe. Many of the submissions were about the meaning of recklessness in offences of child cruelty and how to interpret the House of Lords’ seminal judgment in R v G [2003] UKHL 50.

The Court of Appeal held that the misdirection of law made the conviction unsafe. After detailing the submissions made (at paragraphs 25 to 40), Whipple LJ declined to rule on how to interpret recklessness in G, leaving the important point open.

Resolving the appeal, Whipple LJ (giving the court’s judgment) decided:

“36. There were some inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence, but, at its height, the Appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt his son, only to censure and educate him. If the jury accepted that explanation as possibly true (and we cannot know whether they did or did not, because they were not asked about that) the issue of recklessness would have been live, because, in that event, the prosecution would have had to prove that the Appellant had been reckless as to the risk (even though the injury was unintended) in order to secure conviction. That is why the arguments on appeal have focussed on recklessness rather than intention.

37. When it comes to recklessness, however, the Appellant was not asked whether he was aware of a risk that he would cause unnecessary suffering to his son by his actions. He had no opportunity to give his answer, fair and square, on whether he foresaw a risk of harm by his actions. There was a gap in the evidence on what now emerges as a material issue.

38. There was, in addition, a gap in the directions, which meant that the jury never applied their collective mind to whether the Appellant was aware of the risk of causing unnecessary suffering.

39. Those gaps cannot, in our judgment, be fairly plugged on appeal. The issue of recklessness was for the jury to determine on the basis of relevant evidence going to that issue. We would usurp the function of a trial and the role of the jury if we made assumptions about what evidence might have been given and what the jury might have decided if it had been given. We accept Mx Benn’s submissions that, even on Mr Jarvis’ legal approach, this appeal must be allowed.”

The hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice on 31st October 2025. Judgment was reserved and later handed down on 14th November 2025.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Alex was instructed by Ahmed Malik and Wasef Ali of Liberty Law Solicitors.