Rahman, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted of two offences relating to being concerned in the making of an offer to supply controlled drugs and sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment, suspended for twelve months. The Applicant was in a relationship with Defendant Hasani, an unlawfully present national who was deported and later returned to the United Kingdom. The Applicant assisted Hasani in re-entering the country and subsequently provided a false statement to the police concerning a large sum of cash found in Hasani's car. The prosecution alleged Hasani was involved in drug dealing and the Applicant assisted in laundering proceeds of crime through various financial transactions.

The Applicant was arrested and denied involvement in money laundering, claiming the transactions related to Hasani's gambling. Examination of mobile phone messages revealed discussions about drug supplies, specifically cannabis and cocaine, with agreed prices. The Applicant and Hasani, along with others, were charged on an indictment with multiple counts including conspiracy to launder money and being concerned in offers to supply drugs.

Hasani pleaded guilty to money laundering counts and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Applicant stood trial on counts related to money laundering and drug supply offers, giving evidence of serious domestic abuse including physical violence, coercion, and threats by Hasani. The Applicant claimed her involvement was motivated by fear and attempts to appease Hasani.

The jury acquitted the Applicant on the money laundering count but convicted on the drug supply offer counts. The sentencing judge accepted mitigating factors including the abusive relationship and PTSD but imposed suspended prison sentences. The Applicant applied for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, which were referred to the full court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was wrongly withdrawn from the jury in respect of the drug supply offer counts.
2. Whether the judge failed properly to put the Applicant's defence case to the jury in his summing-up.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence and failing to depart from the sentencing guideline.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 should have been left to the jury for counts 3 and 4, as she was compelled to act due to slavery or relevant exploitation.
• She argued that the evidence of coercion and abuse was intertwined across all counts and that the jury’s acquittal on count 1 demonstrated acceptance of her status as a victim of modern slavery.
• The Applicant submitted that the judge did not adequately present the full scope of her defence, particularly the context of abuse and duress, in his summing-up to the jury.
• Regarding sentence, it was contended that the offence was wrongly categorised and that the judge should have departed from the sentencing guideline as it was contrary to the interests of justice to follow it.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that the statutory defence was not properly available for counts 3 and 4 because there was no evidence the Applicant was compelled to send the messages or that a reasonable person in her situation would have had no realistic alternative.
• The Respondent maintained that the judge’s summing-up sufficiently presented the Applicant’s defence, which was that the messages were a joke or an attempt to facilitate a relationship, and that the evidence against the Applicant was overwhelming.
• It was submitted that any minor error in the judge’s ruling on the statutory defence was immaterial and did not render the convictions unsafe.
• The Respondent suggested the court could provide obiter dicta guidance on the statutory defence but acknowledged such guidance was not necessary in this case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v MK; R v Gega [2018] QB 86	Requirement that a defendant relying on the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 must raise evidence of each element, shifting burden to prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt.	The court applied this principle to determine that the Applicant failed to discharge the evidential burden for counts 3 and 4, as no evidence showed compulsion to commit those offences.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory defence under section 45(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires that the defendant was compelled to commit the offence due to slavery or relevant exploitation and that a reasonable person in the same situation would have no realistic alternative. The court found that while the Applicant claimed compulsion in relation to count 1, she did not provide evidence of compulsion for the drug supply offer counts (3 and 4). Her case for those counts was that the messages were jokes or attempts to maintain relationships, not genuine offers to supply drugs.

The court noted the judge had not been clearly invited to rule on the statutory defence for counts 3 and 4, but in any event, the evidential burden was not met to leave the defence to the jury. The court also held that the judge’s summing-up adequately presented the defence case to the jury, who were entitled to reject the Applicant's explanations given the overwhelming prosecution evidence.

The acquittal on count 1 did not imply acceptance of duress or modern slavery sufficient to affect the safety of the convictions on counts 3 and 4. The court declined to provide general guidance on the statutory defence, considering such commentary would be obiter and reserved for a case where the issue is directly in dispute.

Regarding sentence, the court emphasized the high threshold for departing from sentencing guidelines under section 59 of the Sentencing Code. The judge properly applied the guidelines, giving full weight to mitigation, and the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The direct effect is that the Applicant's convictions on counts 3 and 4 and the suspended sentences imposed stand. No new precedent was established, and the court declined to provide substantive guidance on the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, leaving such issues for future cases where they are fully argued.