Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- Mr B. Douglas-Jones QC and Mr. D. Bunting (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service, South East Complex Case Unit) for the Crown
- Mr. H. Blaxland QC and Mr. L. Sergent (instructed by GT Stewart, Solicitors) for the Respondent
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
DS, R. v
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal by the prosecution under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 against a ruling by His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones QC, dated 14 January, which ordered that proceedings against the Respondent should be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and on 26 February 2020 allowed the appeal and directed the proceedings to continue in the Crown Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court was correct to stay the proceedings against the Respondent on the basis of abuse of process.
- The scope and limits of the abuse of process jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, particularly in relation to victims of trafficking and the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
- The application and relevance of international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU Directive provisions, to domestic prosecutorial decisions in trafficking cases.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010) 51 EHRR 1 |
State's positive obligation under Article 4 ECHR to prohibit and punish trafficking and protect victims |
Confirmed that while states have a positive obligation to protect victims of trafficking, this does not extend to a positive obligation not to prosecute victims of forced or compulsory labour; the court found no basis for such an obligation in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by emphasizing that the abuse of process jurisdiction is an important but limited power that should not be expanded without clear justification. It held that international instruments such as the EU Directive and the ECHR are not directly applicable in domestic law; rather, Parliament's legislation and the CPS Guidance govern prosecutorial decisions.
The Court noted that the Modern Slavery Act 2015, particularly section 45, provides a statutory defence for victims of trafficking, placing the responsibility on the jury to determine the relevant facts about the Respondent's status as a victim. Previously, courts had filled a gap by expanding abuse of process to include judicial fact-finding on victim status, but this is no longer necessary.
The Court identified two categories of abuse of process: (1) where a fair trial is impossible, and (2) where state misconduct renders prosecution wrong. Neither applied in this case. Therefore, the trial judge erred in staying the proceedings on abuse of process grounds.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was ALLOWED.
The Court held that the abuse of process jurisdiction cannot be used to prevent prosecution of the Respondent in light of the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The proceedings should continue in the Crown Court. This decision clarifies that the statutory framework governs victim status determinations and limits the scope of abuse of process stays, without setting new precedent beyond the direct effect on this case.
Click here to read the full judgment