R v Cadonius Lowe

A failure by the prosecution to apply trafficking guidance does not, without more, establish that a conviction is unsafe. An applicant has no automatic right to advance on appeal a defence available at trial. A free and informed decision to maintain guilty pleas may defeat such an application. Anonymity for an alleged victim of trafficking or modern slavery is not automatic. Any restriction on open justice requires clear and cogent evidence of strict necessity, a legitimate aim and proportionality, together with compliance with the procedural requirements for the proposed order.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Swansea on 24 November 2021 to two conspiracies to supply controlled drugs. He later obtained reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds decisions identifying him as a victim of modern slavery. He applied out of time for leave to appeal and sought to introduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

He argued that the prosecution had failed to apply its trafficking policy and that his legal representatives had failed adequately to advise him about the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. He also sought an anonymity or withholding order and reporting restrictions. He did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the guilty pleas were properly entered, whether the convictions were unsafe, whether fresh evidence should be admitted, and whether anonymity was necessary.

Appeal and fresh evidence. The application for leave to appeal, the application to adduce fresh evidence and the application for an extension of time were refused.

1. The prosecution’s admitted failure to apply its policy concerning suspects who may be victims of trafficking or slavery did not establish that the convictions were unsafe. The conclusive grounds decision substantially depended on the applicant’s untested account. On reconsideration, the prosecution maintained that it would have proceeded, given the seriousness of the repeated supply of class A drugs and the absence of clear evidence of duress or a section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
2. An applicant has no automatic right to advance on appeal a defence which could have been advanced at trial. Even if there had been deficiencies in advice about the statutory defence, the applicant’s own statement showed that he knew he could apply to vacate his pleas. His decision not to do so because he did not wish to face a jury was treated as free and informed. The guilty pleas were therefore properly entered.
3. The application to adduce the applicant’s fresh evidence failed, particularly because he had failed to attend and his account could not be forensically tested. The application for an extension of time, which depended on the merits of the substantive application, also failed.
4. Anonymity and open justice. There is no automatic right to anonymity for victims of trafficking or modern slavery. Under Criminal Procedure Rule 6.4, an applicant seeking such an order must specify its proposed terms and duration, identify the court’s power and explain why the order is necessary. Those requirements had not been met. The court applied the principle stated in R v Baniulyte [2025] EWCA Crim 1205 at [88], that any derogation from open justice requires clear and cogent evidence of strict necessity. That evidence was absent, and the withholding application was refused. No reporting restrictions applied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 1673: application for leave to appeal refused. The applications to adduce fresh evidence, extend time and obtain a withholding order and reporting restrictions were also refused.
• Crown Court at Swansea — the applicant pleaded guilty on 24 November 2021 and was sentenced on 9 May 2023 to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each count.