Misapplication of Modern Slavery Defence Under Section 45: Farrel v R [2022] EWCA Crim 859

Introduction

The case of Farrel v R ([2022] EWCA Crim 859) presents a significant examination of the application and instruction of the Modern Slavery Defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The appellant, Horatio Farrel, was convicted in the Crown Court at Lewes for involvement in the supply of Class A drugs. The key issue revolved around the appropriateness of the jury directions regarding the defence of modern slavery, particularly distinguishing between defendants over and under 18 years of age.

The appellant, initially 17 years old at the time of the offence and now 18, was convicted alongside two co-accused, Bilal Charles and Christopher Wilson, both acquitted. The core matter on appeal addressed whether the Recorder in the Crown Court correctly directed the jury on the elements of the Section 45 defence, especially considering the appellant's minor status and the statutory distinctions therein.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal Criminal Division reviewed Farrel's appeal, focusing primarily on the second ground concerning the misdirection related to Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Court found that the Recorder had erroneously included elements of the defence applicable to adults in the instructions provided to a minor defendant. This misdirection conflated the requirements for those over 18 with those under, thereby undermining the legal basis for the defence. Consequently, the Court deemed the conviction unsafe, leading to the quashing of the two drug-related convictions. The Court also declined to order a retrial, considering the broader circumstances of the case.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In this judgment, Lord Justice Fulford did not explicitly cite previous case law; instead, the focus was predominantly on statutory interpretation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The analysis underscores the importance of accurately reflecting statutory provisions in jury directions, highlighting the potential for miscarriages of justice when such instructions misalign with legislative intent. The judgment implicitly references principles from prior cases concerning jury directions and the necessity for precise legal instructions to ensure fair trials.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the instructions given to the jury concerning Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act. Section 45 delineates distinct criteria for defendants based on age—over and under 18—with specific requirements for each category. The Recorder had correctly separated the directions for adult defendants from that of the minor appellant. However, a critical error occurred when the Recorder inadvertently applied an element specific to the adult defence ("no realistic alternative") to the minor appellant's defence, which should instead consider whether a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would have committed the offence.

This conflation introduced a requirement intertwined with the notion of compulsion, which is inapplicable to defendants under 18 under Section 45(4). The Court identified that this misdirection could have led the jury to incorrectly assess the appellant's circumstances, as the "no realistic alternative" criterion is expressly tied to adult defendants who might be compelled by exploitation, thereby undermining the unique protections afforded to minors under the statute.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to the precise application of statutory defences, especially those addressing vulnerable populations such as minors. By highlighting the necessity for accurate jury directions, the Court reinforces the integrity of the legal process in safeguarding defendants' rights. Future cases involving Section 45 will likely reference this judgment to ensure that jurors receive clear and distinct instructions based on the defendant's age, thereby preventing similar miscarriages of justice.

Additionally, this ruling may prompt a broader review of how courts handle modern slavery defences, ensuring that the nuanced differences in statutory provisions are meticulously adhered to in both written and oral directions to juries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015

Section 45 provides a defence for individuals who commit offences under compulsion linked to modern slavery or exploitation. The defence criteria differ based on the defendant's age:

Adults (18 years and over):
- Must have been compelled to commit the offence due to slavery or relevant exploitation.
- The compulsion must be attributable to slavery or relevant exploitation.
- A reasonable person in the same situation, sharing the defendant's characteristics, would have no realistic alternative but to commit the offence.
Minors (under 18 years):
- The minor committed the offence as a direct consequence of being a victim of slavery or relevant exploitation.
- A reasonable person in the same situation, with the same characteristics as the minor, would have committed the offence.
- No separate requirement of compulsion applies.

The key distinction lies in the absence of the "no realistic alternative" clause for minors, focusing instead on whether the minor, given their circumstances and characteristics, would have committed the offence as a reasonable person.

Conclusion

The Farrel v R case serves as a pivotal reference point for the application of the Modern Slavery Defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Court of Appeal's decision to quash the convictions due to misdirection emphasizes the judiciary's role in ensuring that statutory defences are correctly interpreted and conveyed to juries. This judgment highlights the critical importance of distinguishing between defendants' ages when applying legal defences, thereby safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, within the legal system.

Ultimately, this case reinforces the necessity for precise legal instructions in ensuring fair trials and upholding the integrity of judicial processes. Legal practitioners and courts alike will undoubtedly reference this judgment to enhance the accuracy of jury directions in future cases involving similar defences.