Case details
Summary
A guilty plea by a person later recognised as a trafficking victim is not set aside merely because trafficking status or international non-punishment principles are established. The challenge remains governed by the three broad categories identified in R v AAD & Ors [2022] 1 Cr App R(S); no additional category permits a plea to be set aside irrespective of the circumstances. Where contemporaneous records show clear advice about duress and the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty to obtain sentencing credit, later trafficking evidence does not itself make the conviction unsafe. Anonymity requires strict necessity and proportionality despite the principle of open justice.
Factual background
The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Woolwich to producing cannabis and possessing cannabis with intent to supply. He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on 6 April 2018. A single judge refused leave to appeal. On renewal, the applicant relied on a positive conclusive grounds decision made in 2022, expert evidence and medical evidence concerning trafficking. He sought leave to appeal, an extension of time, anonymity and admission of fresh evidence. The central issues were whether his guilty pleas or convictions were unsafe, whether trafficking obligations created an additional route beyond the categories identified in R v AAD & Ors [2022] 1 Cr App R(S), and whether anonymity was justified.
Held
Leave to appeal was refused. The application for an extension of time was also refused, and anonymity was declined.
- The court agreed entirely with the single judge’s analysis. The contemporaneous attendance notes, the evidence of the legal representatives and the sentencing transcript showed that the applicant had been advised about duress and the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. He chose to plead guilty to obtain the benefit of a shorter sentence and earlier release. The suggestion that the advice was incomplete was wholly untenable.
- The positive conclusive grounds decision did not make the convictions unsafe. It relied in part on assertions that the applicant had not been advised about the available defences, but those assertions were inconsistent with the contemporaneous material. The fresh evidence was considered de bene esse under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, without a final ruling on admissibility.
- The court rejected the submission that international obligations concerning trafficking created a further exception to the finality of guilty pleas. In R v AAD & Ors [2022] 1 Cr App R(S), the Court of Appeal had considered those obligations, held that the section 45 requirement of compulsion could not be replaced by causation, and identified the circumstances in which a conviction following a guilty plea could be challenged. Those three broad categories governed the application. There was no arguable justification for adding a category under which a trafficking victim could set aside a guilty plea irrespective of the circumstances.
- Because the proposed appeal was not arguable, any extension of time would be futile and was refused.
- The principle of open justice required publication of the identity of a person convicted of serious offences unless anonymity was strictly necessary and proportionate. The positive trafficking decision, reservations about aspects of the evidence and the asserted safety concerns did not satisfy that threshold. The case was therefore to be listed under the applicant’s name and any previous reporting restrictions revoked.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for leave to appeal refused; extension of time and anonymity also refused. The case was directed to be listed under the applicant’s name under [2023] EWCA Crim 1376.
- Single judge of the Court of Appeal — refused leave to appeal. The renewed application was held not arguable.
- Crown Court at Woolwich — the applicant pleaded guilty to two cannabis offences and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment on 6 April 2018.
Lower court decision
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.