R v Rahman: Defining the Scope of the Modern Slavery Act Section 45 Defence in Drug Supply Offences

Introduction

This case, R v Rahman [2024] EWCA Crim 1719, came before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 19 December 2024. The applicant, Ms Rahman, was convicted of two counts of being concerned in making offers to supply controlled drugs (cocaine and cannabis). She received a suspended custodial sentence of two years. She appealed against both conviction and sentence, arguing principally that (1) the trial judge wrongly refused to leave to the jury her statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the Act”), and (2) that her defence case was not properly put to the jury. The court refused leave to appeal and clarified the limits of the section 45 defence and the sentencing guideline duty.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal held:

• The statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act was not available on the two drug-supply counts because there was no evidence that Ms Rahman was compelled to send the offending messages or that a reasonable person in her situation would have had no realistic alternative.
• The trial judge had fairly and adequately summed up her defence case on counts 3 and 4; the convictions were safe in light of overwhelming evidence.
• The sentencing judge correctly followed the Sentencing Council guideline for low-level supply offences; there was no basis to depart as contrary to the interests of justice.
• Extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• R v MK; R v Gega [2018] QB 86
  This Court held that a defendant relying on the section 45 statutory defence must adduce evidence on each ingredient (compulsion, attribution to slavery/exploitation, no realistic alternative). Once the evidential burden is met, the prosecution must disprove elements beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in two strands:

1. Section 45 Availability
   
   • Compulsion: No evidence demonstrated that Ms Rahman was forced to send the text messages that constituted offers to supply drugs. She consistently insisted that the messages were jokes or attempts to appease her abusive partner.
   • No Realistic Alternative: There was no evidence that a reasonable person with her characteristics would have lacked any realistic alternative to sending those messages.
   • Consequently, the judge correctly concluded that Ms Rahman had not discharged her evidential burden and was not entitled to a jury direction on section 45 for counts 3 and 4.
2. Summing-Up and Safety of Convictions
   The judge outlined the defence that the messages were innocent (a joke or an attempt to secure Hasani’s goodwill towards a friend). The evidence—detailed commercial discussions about pricing, quantities, and modes of payment—overwhelmingly supported the prosecution’s case that these were genuine offers to supply. The jury’s guilty verdicts on counts 3 and 4 were therefore safe.
3. Sentencing Guideline Duty
   Under section 59 of the Sentencing Code every court “must follow any sentencing guidelines…unless satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice.” The judge placed the cocaine offer in category 3 (low-level, £50 end-user sale) and the cannabis offer between categories 3 and 4. Having fully weighed mitigating factors (PTSD, good character, caring responsibilities), he concluded it was not contrary to justice to apply the guideline. The Court of Appeal agreed: the high hurdle for departing from the guideline was not met.

3. Impact

This decision provides authoritative guidance on:

• Strict evidential requirements for the section 45 Modern Slavery defence in the context of inchoate offences (attempts, offers, or conspiracies).
• The distinction between acts done under compulsion (potentially exculpated) and voluntary engagement in criminal conduct, even when motivated by fear arising from domestic abuse.
• The high threshold to depart from sentencing guidelines: early engagement with guideline categories and thorough mitigation is essential, but acceptance of a guideline remains the norm absent compelling reasons.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Statutory Defence (Section 45 MSA): A legal rule that automatically acquits an adult victim of modern slavery who commits an offence when that offence was committed because they were compelled by their trafficker or exploiter and had no realistic choice.
• Evidential Burden: The obligation on the defendant to introduce sufficient evidence that an element of their defence might apply. If met, the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
• Inchoate Offences: Criminal acts that are incomplete or preparatory—e.g., attempts, offers, or conspiracies. These differ from completed offences and may alter the availability of particular defences.
• “Contrary to the Interests of Justice”: A high legal test that must be satisfied before a court may depart from otherwise applicable sentencing guidelines; it requires exceptional circumstances beyond mere disagreement that another judge might have acted differently.

Conclusion

R v Rahman underlines the narrow scope of the section 45 Modern Slavery defence when applied to drug-supply communications unaccompanied by clear evidence of coercion. It confirms the necessity for a defendant to adduce specific compulsion evidence, and for the prosecution thereafter to disprove it. The case also reinforces adherence to Sentencing Council guidelines unless truly exceptional reasons dictate otherwise. Going forward, practitioners must ensure that any reliance on the section 45 defence is supported by explicit evidence of compulsion and lack of realistic alternative, and that sentencing submissions robustly address both guideline applications and the stringent “interests of justice” departure test.