Pre‑Guideline Modern Slavery Authorities Carry Limited Weight on Sentence Appeals: EDS Upheld for Child Forced Labour in Drug Supply

Introduction

In R v Arab, R. [2026] EWCA Crim 1087, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lewis LJ, Steyn J, Stacey J) determined a renewed, non-counsel application for leave to appeal sentence. The applicant challenged an extended determinate sentence (EDS) imposed at Cardiff Crown Court (HHJ Crowther) for requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour contrary to section 1(1)(b) Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The complainant was a looked-after child (15 at the time of offending; 17 at the time of the appeal), groomed into drug-related tasks and controlled through isolation, dependency and fear. The principal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. A subsidiary point of wider interest was the applicant’s reliance on older authorities predating the relevant Sentencing Council guideline.

Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court confirmed that section 45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 reporting restrictions applied because the complainant was under 18, and referred to her only as “the complainant”.
  • Leave to appeal sentence was refused: it was not reasonably arguable that the EDS was manifestly excessive.
  • The EDS of 9 years (a 7-year custodial term plus a 2-year extended licence period) under section 279 Sentencing Act 2020 was held to be fully justified, including the finding of dangerousness (which was not challenged).
  • The Court rejected the utility of reliance on older case law, holding that “ten-year-old cases such as R v Zielinski” (decided before the Modern Slavery guideline came into force) were of “very limited value”.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R v Zielinski

The Court’s treatment of R v Zielinski is brief but important. It did not engage in a granular comparison of facts or sentencing levels; instead, it made a broader methodological point: where a sentencing appeal concerns a modern offence framework governed by current Sentencing Council guidelines, authorities decided before that guideline regime may provide little meaningful assistance.

The implication is not that older authorities are irrelevant in principle, but that their comparative value diminishes when:

  • the guideline now provides structured categorisation of culpability/harm and ranges;
  • the guideline reflects updated legislative policy and sentencing practice;
  • the appeal is framed as “manifest excess”, where guideline compliance strongly indicates correctness.

Legal Reasoning

(1) Guideline anchoring and the “manifestly excessive” threshold

The Court approached the appeal through the familiar lens that an appellate court will intervene only if a sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It found the judge’s route to sentence careful and guideline-compliant:

  • The sentencing judge broadly accepted that the offence sat within category 3B of the Sentencing Council guideline for Modern Slavery offences, with a 6-year starting point and a 5–8 year range.
  • The judge then adjusted upwards to 7.5 years to reflect multiple aggravating features (including prior convictions, the linked drug offending, and totality), and positioned harm towards the higher end of the category given the complainant’s vulnerability and impact.
  • Limited mitigation then produced a final custodial term of 7 years.

By emphasising that the sentence was “entirely in accordance” with evidence, circumstances and the guideline structure, the Court signalled that guideline-consistent reasoning is a strong answer to a “manifest excess” complaint—particularly on a renewed, paper-based application.

(2) Dangerousness and justification for an extended licence period

The EDS depended on a finding of dangerousness and a conclusion that there was a significant risk of serious harm from future specified offences. The Court noted:

  • the applicant was assessed as dangerous in the pre-sentence report;
  • the judge found dangerousness; and
  • there was no challenge to that finding on appeal.

The Court further described the 2-year extended period as “fully justified” on the evidence. The reasoning reflects the statutory purpose of EDS: where risk cannot adequately be managed by the ordinary licence period, an extension is warranted to protect the public and manage risk post-release.

(3) Exploitation narrative rejected as mitigation

The applicant sought to portray himself as being exploited by others and subject to drug debts. The sentencing judge rejected that account, finding instead that he was profiting from and orchestrating exploitation. The Court endorsed that evaluation, referencing lifestyle indicators (expensive items, cash displays) inconsistent with coercion-by-debt. This mattered because it:

  • removed a potentially substantial mitigating theme (reduced autonomy/culpability); and
  • strengthened the conclusion that the applicant was the primary exploiter of a child.

(4) Totality and linked drug offending

The applicant also received concurrent sentences of 10 months for being concerned in supply of Class B drugs (with a limited guilty plea reduction). The Court treated these as uncontentious. The sentencing judge nevertheless took the linked drug offending into account when adjusting sentence for the modern slavery count, expressly referencing totality, thereby ensuring the overall penalty reflected the combined criminality without double counting.

Impact

  • Appeals relying on older comparators: The decision underscores that, for Modern Slavery Act offences, pre-guideline decisions (such as R v Zielinski) may carry little persuasive force where the trial judge has transparently applied the current guideline framework.
  • Child criminal exploitation as forced labour: The facts—grooming, isolation, dependency, fear, and compelled participation in drug supply— illustrate how child criminal exploitation may be sentenced as forced or compulsory labour under section 1(1)(b), with substantial custodial outcomes.
  • Risk management through EDS: The case confirms the appellate court’s readiness to uphold EDS disposals in exploitation contexts where dangerousness is established and the judge provides an evidence-based justification for extended supervision.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Section 45 vs section 45A YJCEA 1999: Section 45 restrictions for a child involved in proceedings generally last until they turn 18; section 45A restrictions for victims/witnesses can be imposed for life. Here, section 45 applied because the complainant was under 18.
  • Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS): A custodial term plus an extended licence period, used where the offender is “dangerous” and presents a significant risk of serious harm, requiring longer supervision after release than a standard determinate sentence provides.
  • Manifestly excessive: A high appellate threshold; the Court does not re-sentence simply because it might have chosen a different figure. The sentence must be outside the range of reasonable sentences or wrong in principle.
  • Totality: The principle that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to all offending taken together, avoiding both excessive accumulation and under-punishment.
  • Forced or compulsory labour (Modern Slavery Act 2015): Not confined to traditional “work”; it can include compelled criminal activity where the offender effectively uses the victim’s labour/services through coercion, control, grooming, or exploitation of vulnerability.

Conclusion

[2026] EWCA Crim 1087 confirms a practical appellate proposition in modern slavery sentencing: where a judge has clearly applied the relevant Sentencing Council guideline and justified aggravation, harm, and dangerousness findings, a “manifest excess” challenge will struggle—particularly if it depends on older, pre-guideline authorities. The Court’s brief dismissal of reliance on R v Zielinski highlights the primacy of guideline-based analysis in contemporary Modern Slavery Act sentencing appeals, while the outcome reinforces that child criminal exploitation can properly attract lengthy custodial terms and extended post-release supervision.