The Court of Appeal has dismissed B.M.'s challenge to his convictions arising from offences against his former partner, while finding that prosecuting counsel crossed the line by repeatedly expressing personal views about the credibility of the complainant.
B.M. had pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court in November 2021 to 32 counts of assault causing harm. Following a 10-day trial, a jury unanimously convicted him of a further 18 offences: 15 counts of assault causing harm, one threat offence and two rape offences.
He was sentenced in December 2022 to concurrent terms producing an effective sentence of 12 years, with the final six months suspended. His appeal challenges both conviction and sentence, but the Court of Appeal's 11 May 2026 judgment dealt only with the conviction element.
The main issue concerned the prosecution's closing speech. B.M. argued that counsel had improperly told the jury, on several occasions, that she personally believed the complainant's evidence was credible and true. The Court of Appeal agreed that these were inappropriate expressions of personal opinion and stressed that deciding whether witnesses are credible is exclusively the jury's function.
However, the court found that the error did not make the trial unfair. The trial judge had promptly reminded jurors that counsel's submissions were not evidence and later specifically directed them to disregard any personal opinion expressed about the complainant's reliability or credibility. The appeal court described that response as having dealt with the issue "impeccably".
B.M. also complained that prosecution counsel repeatedly interrupted the defence cross-examination of the complainant. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, finding that the six identified interventions were either justified or at least reasonably arguable and had not prevented a thorough cross-examination.
The court therefore dismissed the conviction appeal. This judgment does not determine B.M.'s separate appeal against the severity of his sentence.