AEU, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns two applications by the Appellant challenging convictions related to cannabis offences. The first conviction, pleaded guilty to in July 2018 at the Crown Court in Bradford, involved being concerned in the supply of cannabis. The Appellant contends that this conviction is unsafe due to an improper judicial comment on sentence made before his plea. The second conviction, from April 2022 at the Crown Court in St. Albans, relates to producing cannabis, for which the Appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. The Appellant seeks leave to appeal against both the conviction and sentence in the 2022 case. Both applications were made out of time, with the 2018 application approaching six years late, prompting requests for extensions of time.

The Appellant, a Vietnamese national, claims a background of trafficking and asserts that he had a viable defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which was not communicated to him. He argues that had the prosecution known about his trafficked status, they might not have prosecuted him. Due to his potential trafficking status, the court anonymised him as AEU for these proceedings.

The 2018 conviction arose from offences connected to a large cannabis farm at a house in Bradford involving multiple men. The court referenced a prior successful appeal by a co-defendant based on an improper, unsolicited indication of sentence made by the trial judge, which vitiated that co-defendant’s guilty plea. The respondent conceded that the same error applied to the Appellant’s 2018 conviction, leading to an extension of time, leave to appeal, and allowance of that appeal without considering the substantive trafficking defence.

The 2022 conviction concerned the Appellant’s involvement in producing cannabis at a house in Ware, Hertfordshire, where over 400 plants were cultivated. The Appellant was the only person present and responsible for the plants. Upon arrest, he disclosed a history of trafficking and coercion, including being forced to work at cannabis farms under threat. The Appellant was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for a potential Modern Slavery defence, but the process was delayed and incomplete at trial. Despite this, the prosecution proceeded, and the Appellant pleaded guilty on the day of trial after being advised of his options by counsel.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 2018 conviction is unsafe due to an improper and unsolicited judicial indication of sentence that influenced the Appellant’s guilty plea.
2. Whether the 2022 conviction is unsafe given alleged procedural failures by the Crown Prosecution Service in applying the Modern Slavery Act 2015 defence and the National Referral Mechanism process.
3. Whether the sentence imposed in 2022 was manifestly excessive, considering the Appellant’s role, exploitation, and plea of guilty.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 2018 guilty plea was induced by an improper judicial comment on sentence made before the plea, rendering the conviction unsafe.
• The Appellant had a viable defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that was not properly communicated or considered, which should have influenced prosecution decisions in both cases.
• The Crown Prosecution Service failed to correctly apply the four-stage test relating to Modern Slavery, resulting in an unsafe 2022 conviction.
• The sentence imposed in 2022 was excessive, as the Appellant played a lesser role and was exploited, and he should have received greater credit for his guilty plea despite the incomplete NRM process.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent conceded the 2018 conviction was unsafe due to the improper judicial indication and agreed to extend time and allow the appeal.
• Regarding the 2022 conviction, although procedural errors occurred in the CPS’s handling of the Modern Slavery defence, the respondent argued that a proper review would not have led to discontinuance and that the Appellant would have been convicted regardless, making the conviction safe.
• The respondent maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the Appellant’s significant role and the evidence of financial benefit, and that the plea credit awarded was consistent with the timing of the guilty plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the 2018 conviction, finding that the unsolicited judicial indication of sentence, which incorrectly suggested a custodial sentence of around 12 months if the defendants pleaded guilty, was improper and contrary to the Goodyear procedure. This indication was decisive in the Appellant’s decision to plead guilty. The respondent conceded this point, and the court extended time, granted leave to appeal, and allowed the appeal without needing to consider the substantive trafficking defence.

Regarding the 2022 conviction, the court examined the Appellant’s trafficking background and the handling of the Modern Slavery defence. The Appellant had been referred to the National Referral Mechanism, but the process was incomplete at trial. Counsel had explained the options to the Appellant, who pleaded guilty on the day of trial. The Appellant’s later assertions that he was not properly advised were rejected, with the court finding his legal representatives acted appropriately.

The court analysed the Crown Prosecution Service’s failure to properly apply the four-stage test relating to Modern Slavery and accepted that procedural errors occurred. However, applying established authority, the court conducted a thorough review of the evidence, including multiple conclusive grounds decisions and the Appellant’s own testimony. The court concluded that even if a proper review had been conducted, the prosecution would have proceeded, and the conviction was not unsafe.

On sentence, the court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the Appellant’s lesser role and exploitation. The starting point for sentence should have been reduced from four years to around three years before applying a 10% reduction for the plea of guilty, resulting in an appropriate sentence of two years and eight months. The imposed sentence of three years and six months was manifestly excessive. The court quashed the original sentence and substituted the reduced sentence, noting that the Appellant had already served the custodial part and was currently at liberty.

Holding and Implications

2018 Conviction: The court extended time, granted leave to appeal, and allowed the appeal against conviction due to an improper judicial indication of sentence that vitiated the guilty plea. The conviction was quashed.

2022 Conviction: The court refused to extend time and refused leave to appeal against conviction, holding that despite procedural errors by the prosecution regarding the Modern Slavery defence, the conviction was safe and not rendered unsafe by those errors.

Sentence on 2022 Conviction: The court quashed the sentence of three years and six months and substituted a sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment, finding the original sentence manifestly excessive given the Appellant’s role and exploitation.

The direct effect of this decision is the quashing of the 2018 conviction and the reduction of the 2022 sentence, with no effect on the 2022 conviction itself. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.