AAB v R

For convictions predating the Modern Slavery Act 2015, trafficking does not confer blanket immunity from prosecution. The court must determine whether the defendant was trafficked for exploitation, whether the offence was consequent on that exploitation, and whether the defendant had any realistic alternative.

Where those matters show that the Crown Court would have stayed the indictment, the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed. A competent authority’s trafficking decision is not binding, but will ordinarily be followed unless contradicted by material evidence or significant unconsidered evidence. Fresh evidence may be admitted under section 23 where this is expedient in the interests of justice.

AAB pleaded guilty at Derby Crown Court in 2007 to producing cannabis. She was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and recommended for deportation. She later received a Conclusive Grounds decision recognising her as a victim of trafficking for forced criminality.

She sought a substantial extension of time, leave to appeal despite her guilty plea, and admission of fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issue was whether, had her trafficking and compelled involvement been known, the Crown Court would have stayed the indictment and whether the resulting conviction was unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal, admitted the material fresh evidence other than AAB’s statement, and quashed the conviction as unsafe.

2. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 did not operate retrospectively. For an earlier conviction, the court applied the pre-existing regime identified in R v Joseph & ors [2017] EWCA Crim 36. That regime gives effect to the protection for trafficked persons without creating blanket immunity from prosecution.

3. The proper inquiry was whether there was reason to believe that AAB had been trafficked for exploitation; whether the cannabis offence was the result of compulsion and sufficiently connected with that exploitation; whether she had a realistic alternative; whether the trial judge would have stayed the indictment; and whether there was reason not to follow the Conclusive Grounds decision.

4. The Conclusive Grounds decision was not binding. However, there was no material reason to reject it. The court independently found that AAB had been trafficked for exploitation in the cannabis enterprise. Her illiteracy, learning disability, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and limited role supported that finding. Her inconsistent accounts were relevant but did not disprove trafficking.

5. The court accepted that AAB had no realistic alternative to compliance. It concluded that a stay would have been granted had the issue been raised at trial. There was therefore a sound basis for finding that she had been compelled to commit the offence and that the conviction was unsafe.

6. The exceptional delay was excused because the ground had merit and AAB had not known of the potential defence until advised in her immigration and asylum matters.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 880, granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the conviction.
• Derby Crown Court — AAB pleaded guilty on 6 September 2007 to producing cannabis and, on 2 November 2007, was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and recommended for deportation.