R v Ritvan Fucija

Recognition as a victim of modern slavery does not automatically extinguish criminal culpability or establish a defence. Whether section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 applies, or whether prosecution is contrary to the public interest, is fact-sensitive.

Where the defendant’s trafficking claim was central to the defence case and he was advised about the available legal avenues, an unequivocal guilty plea will not ordinarily be undermined by later modern-slavery evidence. A prosecution may review and depart from a positive trafficking decision where there is good reason to doubt the factual account. Fresh evidence that cannot affect the plea or establish an arguable abuse of process provides no basis for extending time or granting leave to appeal.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent to producing cannabis and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on 13 February 2023. He later obtained a positive conclusive grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism and relied on an expert report and witness statement to contend that he was a victim of modern slavery.

He renewed his application for a 161-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. He argued that the prosecution should not have proceeded and that he would have relied on the statutory defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence undermined his guilty plea, and whether the prosecution was arguably an abuse of process or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

The court refused the extension of time and stated that it would refuse leave to appeal.

1. Recognition as a victim of modern slavery does not necessarily extinguish criminal culpability and does not provide an automatic defence to a criminal charge. The availability of a defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the question whether prosecution is contrary to the public interest, are fact-sensitive inquiries.
2. The applicant’s defence case statement placed his alleged trafficking at the centre of his case, and his basis of plea also referred to trafficking. It could not therefore be said that he was unaware that modern slavery was relevant or unable to obtain advice about the possible legal consequences, including a section 45 defence.
3. He had chosen to abandon his defence and not await the conclusive grounds decision. His guilty plea was unequivocal. There were no arguable factors capable of vitiating it, and the later evidence could not undermine the plea.
4. The prosecution had considered the applicant’s circumstances on the evidence available at the time. On review, the prosecution was entitled to depart from the Home Office conclusion where there was good reason to doubt the applicant’s account, including evidence from messages inconsistent with compulsion. The court agreed that there was no arguable abuse of process or basis for concluding that the prosecution should not have proceeded.
5. Even if admissible, the new report and witness statement could make no difference to the result. An extension of time would serve no purpose, so the application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 17 May 2024, the renewed application for an extension of time was refused and leave to appeal would also have been refused. [2024] EWCA Crim 616
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: On 13 February 2023, following a guilty plea, the applicant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for producing cannabis.