R v Sarjo Gjikola

A conclusive grounds decision that a person is a victim of trafficking is not binding on a criminal court. The court must ordinarily respect it unless contrary evidence or other substantial grounds justify doubt. A defence under section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires at least a possibility that the defendant acted because of compulsion attributable to slavery or relevant exploitation. Fresh evidence which is incapable of belief and cannot establish that defence, or an abuse of process, provides no basis to extend time or grant leave to appeal against conviction.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent to producing cannabis and possessing identity documents with improper intention. He received a total sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.

More than 1,300 days later, he sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. He also sought to adduce asylum material and a positive conclusive grounds trafficking decision under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. He contended that, if that material had been available, he would have had a defence under section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, or the prosecution would have been an abuse of process.

The central issue was whether the fresh material and the applicant’s oral evidence could realistically support either contention.

1. The application was refused. The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.
2. A positive conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority was not binding. Applying AAJ [2021] EWCA Crim 1278, the court held that it should normally be respected unless contradicted by evidence or there were substantial reasons to doubt it. The court therefore heard the applicant’s evidence, consistently with the approach in AAD [2022] EWCA Crim 106, because the trafficking decision rested on untested material.
3. The applicant’s oral account was wholly incredible. His account of escape from alleged kidnappers, movement to Italy and the United Kingdom, possession of keys, use of a car, and the false identity documents was inconsistent with his asserted exploitation. It also contained material contradictions.
4. Section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 required at least a possibility that he acted because he was compelled to do so and that the compulsion was attributable to slavery or relevant exploitation. A jury would have rejected both elements. It was therefore unnecessary to consider the reasonable-person element.
5. The proposed fresh evidence was incapable of belief as evidence of either the statutory defence or an abuse of process. It could not have afforded a ground for allowing an appeal. There was consequently no basis to receive it, extend time, or grant leave.

The court also declined to make an anonymity order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: on 14 October 2019 the applicant pleaded guilty to producing a class B controlled drug and possessing an identity document with improper intention. On 17 October 2019 he received consecutive sentences totalling 27 months’ imprisonment.