BGV v R

A conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority is admissible on appeal where a defendant’s trafficking status was overlooked or inadequately considered. Although it is not binding, it will usually be respected because it is the decision of a specialist authority. Departure requires sufficient justification, such as contradictory evidence or significant evidence not considered by that authority.

Where the decision is respected and the prosecution accepts that the trafficking-related compulsion created the necessary nexus with the offence, so that prosecution would not have been in the public interest under the applicable guidance, the conviction should be quashed.

In 2008, BGV pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to possessing a false identity document with intent, contrary to section 25(1)(b) of the Identity Cards Act 2006, and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

More than 15 years later, he appealed against conviction and sentence. The Single Competent Authority had made a conclusive grounds decision that he had been a victim of modern slavery and forced labour in the United Kingdom from 2003 until his arrest in April 2008. The Crown accepted that, if that decision were respected, the necessary nexus between the compulsion and the offence meant that prosecution would not have been in the public interest. The central issue was whether the court should respect that decision despite inconsistencies in BGV’s accounts.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the conviction and made no order for a retrial.
2. The court considered the fresh evidence de bene esse under section 23 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1968. Following Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731, a Single Competent Authority decision is inadmissible at trial but may be admitted on appeal where trafficking status was overlooked or inadequately considered.
3. A conclusive grounds decision is not binding. However, the Single Competent Authority is a specialist body with expertise in trafficking. Under the approach stated in L(C) [2013] EWCA Crim 991, JXP [2019] EWCA Crim 1280 and AAD [2022] EWCA Crim 106, its decision will usually be respected unless sufficient justification exists for departing from it, including contradictory evidence or significant material which it did not consider.
4. There was insufficient justification to depart from the decision. The authority had considered the inconsistent accounts and the supporting expert material. The court accepted that the inconsistencies and the appellant’s unimpressive oral evidence did not displace the coherent explanation that fear, vulnerability, and the wish to avoid return to Nigeria had affected his earlier accounts.
5. The court noted the abuse-of-process principles in AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23, read with AH [2023] EWCA Crim 808, and the public-interest formulation in GS [2018] EWCA Crim 1824. It did not need to resolve those issues independently because the Crown accepted that, once the conclusive grounds decision was respected, prosecution would not have been in the public interest under the CPS guidance.
6. The anonymity order was continued under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Despite the normal rule of open justice, the risk of re-trafficking for criminal exploitation made the order necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction and ordered that there be no retrial: [2025] EWCA Crim 65.
• Crown Court: On 11 April 2008, BGV pleaded guilty to possession of a false identity document with intent and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.