AUL v R

For the statutory defence for adult trafficking victims under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the offender must have acted because of compulsion attributable to slavery or relevant exploitation. Vulnerability or exploitation alone is insufficient. In the trafficking offence, harbouring concerns keeping a victim in a place to facilitate travel. Freely chosen accommodation, freedom to leave and instructions to deliver drugs do not establish trafficking where there is no relevant travel. A conclusive grounds decision is admissible on an appellate fresh-evidence application, but does not determine whether the statutory defence or a prosecution stay is made out. The court must examine the underlying evidence and statutory requirements.

AUL pleaded guilty to drug-supply offences in the Crown Courts at Bournemouth and Bristol in 2016 and 2017. He later sought extensions of time and renewed permission to appeal, relying on the statutory defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. He also argued that the prosecution should have been stopped, or stayed as an abuse of process, and sought to adduce National Referral Mechanism decisions as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issues were whether the evidence disclosed trafficking-related compulsion, whether the prosecution should have been discontinued or stayed, and whether the convictions were arguably unsafe.

1. Disposition and fresh evidence. The Court treated the renewed applications as within time after a procedural filing error, but refused permission to appeal out of time and the applications to adduce further evidence. The evidence was considered de bene esse. A conclusive grounds decision was admissible on an application to the Court of Appeal under R v AAD and others [2022] EWCA Crim 106; it would not have been admissible at first instance under R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731.
2. Prosecution decisions. The relevant CPS guidance asked whether there was credible evidence that the defendant fell within the trafficking definition, whether there was a nexus between the crime and trafficking, and whether prosecution was in the public interest. Those questions were set out in R v Joseph and Others [2017] EWCA Crim 36. The proposed challenge to the CPS decision was not arguable. Nor was an abuse-of-process stay arguable.
3. Trafficking. In the context of section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, harbouring meant keeping a victim in a place so as to facilitate travel. The applicant had chosen to live in the accommodation, was free to come and go, and was not being transported or kept there for that purpose. Moving between accommodation and delivering drugs to addresses did not amount to facilitating travel for exploitation.
4. Section 45 defence. The applicant had no realistic prospect of showing that he acted because he was compelled, or that any compulsion was attributable to slavery or relevant exploitation. He was able to abandon the drug dealing, was free to leave and was paid for the work. Vulnerability to exploitation fell far short of compulsion. The conclusive grounds decision was not a comprehensive analysis: it accepted an untested account, omitted material matters and did not apply the statutory provisions.
5. Anonymity and final order. Applying the principles considered in R v L and N [2017] EWCA Crim 2129, the Court continued the anonymity order. The applicant had been trafficked and exploited as a child and had been granted leave to remain. The convictions were not arguably unsafe.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal out of time and applications to adduce further evidence were refused. The convictions were held not to be arguably unsafe: [2022] EWCA Crim 1435.
2. Crown Court at Bournemouth: The applicant pleaded guilty to drug-supply offences, was acquitted after trial of ammunition offences, and was sentenced to imprisonment.
3. Crown Court at Bristol: The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a class A drug and was sentenced to imprisonment.