R v ABR

A conviction following a guilty plea may be unsafe where fresh evidence gives good reason to suppose that the plea deprived the defendant of a defence which would quite probably have succeeded. A prosecution conducted contrary to the CPS policy concerning a potential victim of trafficking may be capable of amounting to an abuse of process. Where either route establishes that the conviction is unsafe, the court may quash it without deciding which route is the formal basis of its decision.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil to producing cannabis and was sentenced to eight months’ detention in a young offender institution. He had said that, after entering the United Kingdom from Albania, threats against him and his family had compelled him to work at the cannabis farm.

He sought a substantial extension of time, permission under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce fresh evidence, and leave to appeal against conviction. The new evidence comprised a Conclusive Grounds Decision identifying him as a victim of trafficking and psychiatric evidence of depression, anxiety and PTSD. He contended that the prosecution should not have continued while his National Referral Mechanism referral remained unresolved and that his condition may have made his guilty plea equivocal.

The Crown accepted that its policy had not been properly followed, did not oppose the appeal, and accepted that a defence might probably have succeeded. The central issue was whether the conviction was unsafe notwithstanding the guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted the necessary extension of time and leave to adduce the fresh evidence. It quashed the conviction as unsafe and made no order for a retrial.
2. The Crown accepted that its published policy relating to a potential victim of trafficking had not been properly followed. The court held that a prosecution conducted in the conceded manner was capable of amounting to an abuse of process. It treated R v AAD, AAH and AAI [2022] EWCA Crim 106 as having authoritatively resolved that issue.
3. The court also held that there was good reason to suppose that the guilty plea had deprived the appellant of a defence which would quite probably have succeeded. The fresh trafficking and psychiatric evidence supported the conclusion that the plea may have resulted from a defective understanding of his position. An appeal may therefore succeed despite the entry of a guilty plea.
4. The court had not heard full argument and declined to choose between abuse of process and plea equivocality as the route to the result. Either route led to the same conclusion: the conviction was unsafe. The Crown confirmed that no proper application for a retrial would follow, so the proceedings ended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 625, the court extended time, admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction and ordered no retrial.
• Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil: The appellant pleaded guilty on 24 October 2022 to producing a class B controlled drug, namely cannabis, and was later sentenced to eight months’ detention in a young offender institution.