BMJ v R

An anonymity order under section 11 may be necessary, despite open justice, where a person with a modern-slavery finding faces a real risk of re-trafficking.

In a trafficking-related abuse-of-process challenge, the CPS guidance requires a stepped assessment of trafficking status, available defences and the public interest. Non-compliance with the guidance is relevant but not decisive. The court reviews the prosecutorial decision for rationality and procedural fairness, while giving appropriate weight to a careful retrospective assessment. A positive conclusive-grounds decision is not binding, although it will usually be respected absent good reason. Pressure or intimidation may mitigate drug offending, but does not necessarily establish duress or require a lesser-role finding.

The applicant sought substantial extensions of time to appeal convictions and sentences arising from three sets of drug, knife and related offences dealt with at Blackfriars and Norwich Crown Courts between 2016 and 2022.

After the final convictions, the Single Competent Authority made a positive conclusive-grounds decision that he had been a victim of modern slavery for criminal exploitation. He contended that the police and CPS should have identified and referred him as a potential victim, and that the prosecutions were therefore an abuse of process. For the later drug-supply offences, he also relied on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The court received fresh evidence de bene esse, including evidence from the applicant and his partner and statements from former legal representatives. The central issues were whether he had been trafficked at the material times, whether any prosecutorial failure rendered the convictions unsafe, and whether pressure linked to debt required lower sentences.

1. Disposition. The court made the anonymity order sought under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It refused every application for an extension of time to appeal conviction or sentence.
2. Abuse of process. The court applied the approach in AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23 and AH [2023] EWCA Crim 808. CPS compliance with trafficking guidance affects the intensity of scrutiny. A failure to comply permits closer intervention, but does not itself decide the issue. The court must review the decision for rationality and procedural fairness, with appropriate deference to a full and fair retrospective prosecutorial assessment.
3. First and third offences. Nothing in the first offences, or in the applicant's initial account, gave the police or CPS reason to believe that he was trafficked. Although the prosecution did not appear to follow its guidance in the later proceedings after an NRM referral, the court conducted its own assessment. It found the applicant's evolving and contradictory accounts unreliable, rejected his explanation of the phone evidence, and concluded that he was not a victim of trafficking or modern slavery at the material times. The SCA decision was admissible and considered, but was not binding; the court had good reason not to accept its conclusion.
4. Public interest. Applying R v S(G) [2018] EWCA Crim 1824, the seriousness of the offences meant that prosecution would in any event have been in the public interest, even if trafficking had been established. There was therefore no abuse of process and no arguable ground affecting conviction safety.
5. Sentence. Pressure to repay a drug debt could mitigate sentence without amounting to duress or requiring a lesser-role finding. The first sentencing judge had allowed for that pressure within the applicable range. No comparable pressure was advanced for the knife offence. For the later supply offences, the judge had taken the basis of plea into account and reduced the sentence under section 313(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020. None of the sentences was arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In BMJ v R [2025] EWCA Crim 716, the court made an anonymity order and refused extensions of time to challenge the convictions and sentences.
• Norwich Crown Court. On 11 April 2022, the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the third set of offences, including two Class A drug-supply counts.
• Norwich Crown Court. On 9 May 2018, the applicant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for possessing a bladed article in a public place.
• Blackfriars Crown Court. On 14 March 2016, the applicant was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for the first set of drug and criminal-property offences.