"A", R v

An unambiguous and intentional guilty plea will ordinarily prevent an appeal against conviction. The Court will permit a defendant to go behind such a plea only exceptionally. The principal exceptions concern a plea compelled by an adverse ruling which left no arguable defence, or a legal obstacle to trial.

An overlooked defence may exceptionally justify intervention only where it would quite probably have succeeded and a clear injustice has occurred. A positive National Referral Mechanism decision may be relevant, but it is not conclusive in criminal proceedings. It must, with the available evidence, demonstrate that the conviction is arguably unsafe.

The applicant, then aged 17, pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to two offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply. He received a 12-month youth rehabilitation order.

After a later prosecution at Woolwich Crown Court, the applicant obtained a positive National Referral Mechanism Conclusive Grounds decision recognising that he had been a victim of modern slavery for forced criminality. He sought an extension of time and permission to appeal his earlier conviction, contending that the decision disclosed a potential defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and should have affected the decision to prosecute.

The central issue was whether that later material made a conviction founded on an intentional guilty plea arguably unsafe.

1. The application for an extension of time and permission to appeal against conviction was dismissed. The applicant's guilty plea was unambiguous and intentionally entered. Such a plea ordinarily provides no basis for an appeal against conviction.

2. The Court applied the principles restated in R v S [2020] EWCA Crim 765 and R v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Crim 714. The two principal exceptions did not arise: no adverse ruling had compelled the plea, and no legal obstacle had prevented the applicant's trial. The categories were not exhaustive, but an overlooked defence permits intervention only in the most exceptional circumstances.

3. Applying R v Boal [1992] QB 591, the relevant question was whether the proposed defence would quite probably have succeeded so that a clear injustice had occurred. The Court could not so conclude. The account underlying the positive National Referral Mechanism decision was untested and materially inconsistent with both the applicant's basis of plea and his later sworn evidence at the Woolwich trial. Those discrepancies substantially undermined his credibility.

4. A subsequent positive National Referral Mechanism decision can, in an appropriate case, support an application notwithstanding a guilty plea. However, as confirmed in R v DS [2020] EWCA Crim 2845, it is not conclusive in criminal proceedings. On the available material, the decision did not make a section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 likely to succeed or establish that the Crown Prosecution Service should not have prosecuted.

5. The Court reached its conclusion from the written material and did not need to decide whether to admit the further police statements tendered by the prosecution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). By this judgment, [2020] EWCA Crim 1611, the Court dismissed the application for permission to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth. On 18 December 2017 the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply. On 26 January 2018 he received a 12-month youth rehabilitation order.