Reaffirming the Limits of the Modern Slavery Defense in Criminal Exploitation Cases

Introduction

The case of BZP, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 267) presents a complex interplay between allegations of trafficking, forced criminality, and modern slavery defenses. At the heart of the dispute is the applicant’s attempt to extend the time for filing an appeal based on his claim of being a victim of modern slavery – a claim that seeks relief by invoking section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The applicant, who was convicted for producing a controlled drug (cannabis) after being found at a property in Stoke on Trent, argues that under the circumstances of his trafficking into the United Kingdom, his criminal conduct should be reassessed or possibly even excused. The Crown, however, challenges this claim by emphasizing inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence and the available realistic alternatives he possessed for extricating himself from the situation. This judgment assesses whether the nexus between the alleged trafficking and his involvement in criminal activity can substantiate a defense that might have influenced the prosecution's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) rejected the application for an extension of time and permission to appeal. The court concluded that the applicant’s guilty plea was not vitiated by inadequate legal advice regarding a possible modern slavery defense. Significantly, the judgment focused on the “nexus between the trafficking and criminality” – finding that even if the applicant was exploited, he possessed sustainable alternatives and accessible means of escape, which undermined the claim of compelled action under modern slavery principles. The court analyzed the evidence critically, highlighted material inconsistencies in the applicant’s different statements, and maintained that neither the positive grounds decision issued by the Single Competent Authority (SCA) nor the First Tier Tribunal’s ruling would have provided a sufficient basis for an abuse of process argument. Ultimately, the court refused both the appeal and the extension application, reaffirming that the prosecution was justified in its course of action.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision drew upon several significant precedents which shaped its reasoning:

• VSJ [2017] EWCA Crim 36: The judgment acknowledged the principle that merely fitting the profile of a trafficking victim does not automatically confer a defense unless there is clear evidence of compelled criminal behavior. This precedent underscored the necessity of a rigorous examination of the “nexus” between trafficking and criminal conduct.
• R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108: Referenced by the applicant’s counsel in arguing that proper legal advice could have led to a successful modern slavery defense. The court, however, differentiated the facts of that case from the present circumstances.
• R v GS [2018] EWCA Crim 1824: Used to support the argument that an abuse of process may occur if the prosecution advanced despite the applicant’s status as a trafficking victim – a line of reasoning the court rejected, noting that the public interest remained with prosecution based on the established facts.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was meticulous and multifaceted. It centered on the dual inquiry of whether the applicant’s involvement constituted a realistic exercise of free will and if his actions were truly compelled by the conditions akin to modern slavery.

Key points in the reasoning included:

• Assessment of Compulsion: Under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the defense requires that the defendant was compelled to commit the act due to slavery or exploitation, ensuring no realistic alternative existed. The judgment stressed that while the applicant might have been vulnerable due to his trafficking into the UK, evidence such as his ability to leave the premises, access to communication tools (keys, phones, and the internet), and contact with the external environment suggested he had viable options for escape.
• Evaluation of Evidence and Consistency: The court noted multiple discrepancies between the applicant’s different witness statements. This inconsistency, particularly on critical issues such as the method of communication and the sequence of events, weakened the claim that he was under compulsion in the necessary legal sense.
• Role of Legal Advice: The court reviewed the effectiveness of legal advice given by Mr. S. Muldoon. Despite alternative interpretations of his advice, the Court concluded that any differences in legal counsel regarding the modern slavery defense were insignificant given the overwhelming evidence of the applicant’s accessible alternatives for avoiding the crime.

Impact

This ruling is poised to have a significant impact on future cases at the intersection of trafficking, modern slavery, and criminal behavior. Key implications include:

• Clarification of the Modern Slavery Defense: The judgment reinforces that a modern slavery defense under section 45 will not succeed if the defendant had any realistic avenues for evading criminal conduct. This ruling sets a stringent threshold for proving compulsion.
• Evaluation of Culpability in Trafficking Contexts: Future cases will likely reference this judgment when examining the nexus between exploitation and criminal conduct, ensuring that claims of victimization are closely scrutinized against tangible indicators of free will and opportunity for escape.
• Guidance for Legal Representation: Solicitors and advocates are reminded of the importance of clear, comprehensively documented legal advice, especially when a potential defense based on modern slavery is at stake. The case underscores the necessity for consistency in legal documentation and communication with clients.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts central to this judgment warrant simplification:

• Section 45 Defense: This defense under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 permits a person to not be found guilty of an offense if they acted under compulsion attributable to slavery or exploitation, and if a reasonable person in their position would have no realistic alternative. The court’s strict interpretation implies that if the defendant had any viable means to avoid criminal conduct – even if exploited – the defense may fail.
• Abuse of Process: This concept involves the injustice of proceeding with a prosecution when significant legal or procedural missteps have occurred (such as failing to recognize a valid defense). The court determined that despite indications of trafficking, the prosecution’s decision to charge was not procedurally unfair.
• Nexus Between Trafficking and Criminality: Essentially, this concerns whether the exploitation or trafficking directly caused the criminal behavior. The Court found that while trafficking can be a mitigating factor, it does not automatically exonerate an individual if other opportunities to act differently were available.

Conclusion

The judgment in BZP, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 267) clearly delineates the boundaries within which a modern slavery defense may be considered. The Court’s in-depth analysis emphasized that being trafficked into the United Kingdom does not, on its own, absolve an individual of responsibility for subsequent criminal activities if realistic alternatives to committing the offense were available. While the applicant’s vulnerability and exploitation were acknowledged, the evidence pointed to inconsistent testimonies and tangible means for escape—factors that ultimately led the Court to affirm the integrity of the guilty plea.

This decision is significant in that it solidifies the requirement for a direct and compelling connection between the imposed exploitation and the commission of an offense. Furthermore, it serves as a reminder for both the prosecution and the defense regarding the critical importance of clear evidence and consistent legal advice in cases where modern slavery and criminal conduct intertwine.

Key Takeaways

• The modern slavery defense is only viable if there is an unequivocal lack of realistic alternatives for the defendant.
• A strong evidentiary nexus between exploitation and criminal behavior is essential to establish compelled criminality.
• Inconsistent witness statements and evidence detailing alternative escape opportunities can significantly undermine a modern slavery defense.
• This judgment will likely influence future cases by setting a high threshold for claims of being forced to commit a crime under modern slavery conditions.