Gjikola, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 27, pleaded guilty on 14 October 2019 at the Crown Court in The City to producing a controlled drug of class B (cannabis) and possession of an identity document with improper intention. On 17 October 2019, he was sentenced to a total of 27 months' imprisonment (21 months for drug production and 6 months consecutively for possession of false identity documents).

The Appellant now applies for an extension of time of just over 1,300 days seeking leave to appeal against conviction. The application was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

The essence of the appeal is that the Appellant and his representatives were not aware of material now available, which, if known, would have prevented a guilty plea due to a potential defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is also argued that the prosecution would not have proceeded or would have been successfully challenged for abuse of process if they had been aware of this material.

The Appellant seeks to introduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 relating to his asylum application and a conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority that he is a victim of trafficking.

The prosecution contends that even with the new material, the Appellant would not have been able to rely on a defence under the 2015 Act, and that a reasonable prosecutor would have continued with the prosecution, which would likely have succeeded.

Regarding the facts, in mid-September 2019, police discovered a house in Burslem, The City, adapted for cannabis cultivation with 133 plants and bypassed electricity. They found multiple false Romanian identity documents bearing the Appellant’s photograph, although he is an Albanian national. The Appellant arrived at the house during the police presence, entered using a key, and was arrested.

Upon police interview, the Appellant stated he had been in the UK about six months, declined to specify his residence duration, admitted smoking cannabis, but declined further questioning.

While on remand, the Appellant was interviewed by immigration officers and claimed asylum. He was referred to the Single Competent Authority under the National Referral Mechanism for potential victims of trafficking. The Authority initially made a reasonable grounds decision and later a conclusive grounds decision confirming the Appellant as a victim of trafficking, despite some inconsistencies in his account.

The Appellant gave evidence before the court describing being abducted and held hostage in Albania, threatened with harm to his family, forced to work without pay to repay debts, and brought to the UK hidden in a lorry. He claimed to have been coerced into involvement with the cannabis cultivation and possession of false documents, asserting fear for his family’s safety.

The court assessed the credibility of his evidence and found it not credible, highlighting contradictions such as the Appellant’s ability to leave the house freely and the presence of multiple false identities and a car registered under a false name.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction based on fresh evidence of trafficking and a defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
2. Whether the fresh evidence would have led a reasonable prosecutor to decide not to proceed with the prosecution in 2019.
3. Whether the Appellant could have successfully raised a defence pursuant to section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 at trial.
4. Whether the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process in light of the new evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant would not have pleaded guilty if the fresh evidence had been known, as it demonstrates he was a victim of trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
• The fresh evidence includes a positive conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority and details from his asylum application.
• The prosecution would not have proceeded or would have been defeated by an abuse of process application if aware of this evidence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Appellant would not have been able to rely on any defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 even if the fresh evidence had been available.
• A reasonable prosecutor would have continued with the prosecution regardless, and the prosecution would likely have succeeded.
• The inconsistencies and contradictions in the Appellant’s evidence undermine the credibility of the trafficking claim.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined whether the fresh evidence relating to trafficking and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 defence would have influenced a reasonable prosecutor’s decision to proceed in 2019. The court considered the Single Competent Authority’s conclusive grounds decision but noted that such a decision is not binding and must be assessed alongside other evidence.

The Appellant’s oral evidence was evaluated for credibility, with the court finding his account inconsistent and implausible, particularly regarding his freedom of movement, possession of false documents, and the care for his family’s safety. The court found no credible basis to conclude that the Appellant’s actions were compelled by slavery or relevant exploitation as required by the defence under section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Given the lack of credible evidence supporting the defence or abuse of process, the court concluded that the fresh evidence would not have provided grounds to allow the appeal or to prevent the prosecution from proceeding.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Appellant’s application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s conviction and sentence remain intact. No new precedent was established by this ruling. The court also declined to grant anonymity to the Appellant, permitting reporting of the case using his full name.