GB v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 19 May 2008 at the Crown Court at Lewes, before His Honour Judge Brown DL, the Appellant pleaded guilty to Possession of False Identity Documents with Intent contrary to Section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation. The Appellant had travelled to the United Kingdom from Italy while six months pregnant and was found attempting to check in for a flight to Canada using a false UK passport. She admitted the offence during an interview under caution and explained she was a victim of trafficking, having been forced into prostitution in Italy and helped to escape by a client who arranged her travel.

Following the conviction, the UK Border Agency refused to grant the Appellant 'victim of trafficking' status in 2010 and rejected her out-of-time appeals against conviction and asylum application in 2012. A deportation order was made in 2013. However, in December 2015, the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Keane) found the Appellant to be a credible victim of trafficking and allowed her appeal against deportation on asylum and human rights grounds. Subsequently, on 21 May 2016, the Appellant was granted five years' leave to remain on asylum grounds.

In 2019, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred the Appellant's conviction to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, citing changes in the law relating to the prosecution of victims of trafficking following the decision in R v S(G) [2018] EWCA Crim 1824. The primary ground of appeal, reflecting the CCRC's reasoning, was determinative, and the appeal was allowed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in light of the change in law since the Appellant's conviction and the fresh evidence establishing her status as a victim of trafficking, the conviction was unsafe and should be quashed.
2. Whether the Appellant suffered a substantial injustice if the appeal was not allowed, given the impact of the conviction on her immigration status.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant committed the offence as a direct consequence of her experience as a victim of trafficking and had no realistic alternative to using a false passport to escape her traffickers.
• The conviction adversely affects her immigration status, preventing her from obtaining Indefinite Leave to Remain and full citizenship in the UK for a significant period.
• The conviction impairs her employment prospects, particularly in the care sector, due to disclosure requirements related to criminal records.
• The fresh evidence, including the First-tier Tribunal's finding and expert psychiatric reports, supports her claim as a victim of trafficking and establishes a change in the law that warrants quashing the conviction.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent accepted the Appellant was a credible victim of trafficking and acknowledged the seriousness of her exploitation.
• However, it was argued that upon arrival in the UK, the Appellant was removed from the dominant compulsion of her traffickers and could have sought help or claimed asylum in the UK, thus diminishing the compulsion to commit the offence.
• The level of compulsion was said to fall short of negating criminal responsibility or justifying non-prosecution, meaning the prosecution was not an abuse of process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court admitted fresh evidence including the First-tier Tribunal's 2015 decision recognizing the Appellant as a credible victim of trafficking, expert psychiatric reports diagnosing PTSD linked to her trafficking experience, and Home Office documents granting leave to remain. The court found no credible challenge to the First-tier Tribunal's and Competent Authority's decisions on her trafficking status and accepted the Appellant's victim status as established.

Applying the legal framework established in R v S(G) and related authorities, the court considered whether the offence was committed under compulsion connected to trafficking such that prosecution was not in the public interest. It found a clear nexus between the Appellant's offence (possession of a false passport) and her exploitation as a trafficking victim. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the Appellant could have sought asylum immediately upon arrival in the UK, noting her vulnerability, dependency on traffickers, and lack of realistic alternatives.

The court concluded that the Appellant's culpability was extinguished by the dominant compulsion arising from trafficking, making the conviction unsafe. It also recognized that the conviction had significant adverse effects on her immigration status, constituting substantial injustice if the appeal were dismissed. The court thus allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

Additionally, the court granted anonymity to the Appellant in the proceedings, reflecting her circumstances as a victim of sexual exploitation and consistent with prior protective orders.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL AND QUASH THE CONVICTION.

This ruling directly affects the Appellant by removing the conviction that impeded her immigration status, enabling potential future applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain and citizenship. The decision acknowledges the change in law regarding the treatment of victims of trafficking and affirms that convictions obtained without proper consideration of trafficking-related compulsion may be unsafe. No broader precedent beyond the facts of this case and the application of existing legal principles was established.