R v BEP

A guilty plea is not equivocal merely because a defendant maintains that a statutory defence may be available or continues to assert facts supporting it. A defendant may freely plead guilty after advice that the defence carries a risk of failure, including to obtain sentencing credit. Recognition as a trafficking or modern-slavery victim does not automatically establish the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015; compulsion, attribution to slavery or trafficking, and the absence of a realistic alternative remain factual questions. An ongoing referral process and sentencing findings of compulsion do not make a deliberate plea unsafe. Exceptional intervention remains possible where legal error or deficient advice probably deprived the defendant of a good defence.

The applicant, an Albanian national, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment at the Crown Court at Harrow to producing a Class B drug and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. He applied for a 965-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction.

He relied on fresh evidence, including a positive conclusive grounds decision that he was a victim of modern slavery and psychological reports. The prosecution did not challenge that status, but argued that the plea was freely and unequivocally entered. The central issue was whether the applicant’s continuing assertion that he had been trafficked and compelled to offend made his guilty plea equivocal or rendered the conviction unsafe.

Mr Justice Holgate gave the judgment of the court.

1. Anonymity. The court made an anonymity order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Open justice applied, and departure from that principle had to be strictly necessary. The unchallenged conclusion of the Single Competent Authority that the applicant was a victim of modern slavery made anonymity strictly necessary.
2. Extension of time. The 965-day delay was not justified. The decisive question was nevertheless whether an extension was in the interests of justice, including consideration of the merits of the proposed grounds. The fresh evidence was received de bene esse under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
3. Guilty pleas. Applying the categories identified in R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, the applicant had to establish circumstances showing that the conviction was unsafe. This was not a case of an unintended or improperly compelled plea, an abuse of process, or a false plea. Under R v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Crim 714, a guilty plea is a formal admission. The possibility of sentencing credit and the difficulty of choosing to admit guilt do not remove the defendant’s freedom of choice.
4. Modern slavery defence. The positive victim-status decision did not automatically establish the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The statutory questions included whether the defendant was compelled, whether the compulsion was attributable to slavery or trafficking, and whether a reasonable person with the defendant’s relevant characteristics would have had no realistic alternative. The applicant had been properly advised, understood the risk, and freely chose not to await the NRM outcome or rely on the defence. The continuing referral process and the sentencing judge’s finding of compulsion therefore did not make the plea equivocal. The exceptional circumstances identified in R v V [2020] EWCA Crim 1355 and R v Boal [1992] QB 591 were absent.
5. Order. The proposed grounds were unarguable and the conviction was not arguably unsafe. The application for the extension of time was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2022] EWCA Crim 1881. The application for a 965-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Crown Court at Harrow: The applicant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment on 19 July 2019.