Kwiatkowska, R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant (initially listed under random initials) lodged applications before the full Court seeking (i) an extension of time to apply, (ii) leave to appeal against five sets of convictions, and (iii) permission to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 concerning her status as a Victim of Trafficking / Victim of Modern Slavery. The Appellant pleaded guilty to offences arising in 2011, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2020 (variously described in the judgment). Except for the 2011 matter (a Youth Rehabilitation Order), the Appellant received immediate custody terms, and from 2015 a mandatory minimum term applied under section 111 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (now section 314 Sentencing Act 2020). The Registrar referred the applications to the full Court. The Appellant subsequently died after the hearing; a person approved to take further steps in the appeal applied for anonymity and reporting restrictions were ordered under section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent identification of that person.

The Court received voluminous additional material (social services records, psychological and psychiatric reports, two Positive Conclusive Grounds Decisions from the Single Competent Authority, and a First Tier Tribunal judgment allowing an immigration appeal). The Appellant gave evidence with the assistance of an intermediary. The Respondent opposed the applications in respect of the 2017, 2019 and 2020 convictions but did not oppose the 2011 and 2015 matters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether time should be extended and leave granted to appeal the five convictions in light of fresh evidence under section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
2. Whether the convictions are unsafe because proceedings were an abuse of process in circumstances where the Appellant was a Victim of Trafficking / Victim of Modern Slavery and the authorities (police/prosecution) failed to identify or act on that status (including application of CPS guidance and Article 4 obligations).
3. Whether inadequate advice about a statutory defence under section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 vitiated guilty pleas and rendered convictions unsafe.
4. How public interest considerations (including repeated offending and the possibility of a section 45 defence) affect whether convictions should be quashed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• All five convictions are unsafe: the Appellant had been subjected to intra-community and intra-familial trafficking from childhood and was compelled to offend; the police and prosecution failed to identify her as a VOT/VMS and to apply relevant guidance (abuse of process under Article 4 ECAT and Article 4 ECHR).
• The Appellant received no or inadequate advice about the section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 defence; she had significantly limited intellect and could not understand the consequences of pleading guilty; pleas were vitiated by vulnerability and pressure.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent conceded the 2011 and 2015 convictions should be allowed to be appealed (on grounds discussed), but opposed appeals in respect of 2017, 2019 and 2020 on public interest and evidential grounds.
• For the later convictions the Respondent relied on contemporaneous admissions, endorsements, and the Appellant's conduct (including repeated offending and choices to plead guilty for reasons of safety) to argue that prosecution and convictions were not fatally flawed.
• The Respondent contended that even where fresh evidence indicated exploitation, it would not necessarily follow that prosecution was clearly flawed or that a stay would have been required; a jury might reasonably be required to determine the section 45 defence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that it was necessary and expedient in the interests of justice to receive fresh evidence under section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It applied the statutory text of section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the authorities (notably AFU and GS) to determine whether convictions were unsafe by reason of abuse of process or defective advice regarding the section 45 defence.

Key analytical steps:

• Examined the new evidence (social services records, psychiatric reports, SCA Positive Conclusive Grounds Decisions, FTT judgment) and heard the Appellant's evidence with an intermediary; assessed credibility and consistency of accounts and expert material.
• Applied established principles: presumption of capacity (Mental Capacity Act 2005), approach to appeals after guilty pleas (R v Tredget), and the abuse of process / public interest formulations in R v GS and AFU.
• Considered whether police/prosecution failures to identify VOT/VMS status in 2015 (and earlier) meant prosecutions were clearly flawed; concluded that in some earlier matters the public interest favoured non-prosecution.
• Analysed whether failure to advise on section 45 made a difference to the Appellant's decision to plead guilty (using the Dastjerdi checklist as applied in PK and related authorities). Evaluated contemporaneous endorsements, attendance notes and McCook responses about advice given.
• Assessed each conviction separately, balancing the Appellant's background and vulnerabilities against the seriousness of repeated offending and contemporaneous evidence of admissions and endorsements indicating the Appellant often pleaded guilty to obtain safety or immediate release.

Conviction-by-conviction application of these steps produced differentiated outcomes based on whether prosecution would have been clearly flawed and whether lack of advice on section 45 likely made a difference to the plea.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court made the following final determinations:

• The appeals against the 2011 and 2015 convictions are allowed.
• The appeals against the 2017, 2019 and 2020 convictions are dismissed.

Implications: The direct effect is that the 2011 and 2015 convictions are quashed pursuant to the Court's finding of abuse of process / unsafe conviction in those matters; the 2017, 2019 and 2020 convictions remain in force. The Court emphasized that no new legal principle was created beyond application of existing authorities (section 45 jurisprudence and abuse of process principles) and that public interest considerations may require a jury to decide the section 45 defence in finely balanced cases. Reporting restrictions ordered prevent identification of the person approved to take further steps during their lifetime or until further order.