Factual and Procedural Background
A section 45 order protected the Complainant’s identity, prohibiting publication of identifying details until she turned 18, and the order remained in force. [Para 26]
This was a renewed application for leave to appeal against a 9-year extended determinate sentence imposed under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. [Para 27]
The sentence was imposed after a trial at The Crown Court in The City before Judge Crowther, and the Applicant had earlier pleaded guilty on the first day of trial to two Class B drug offences and received concurrent 10-month sentences. [Para 28]
The Complainant was a vulnerable looked-after 15-year-old in care who had been given the Applicant’s telephone number as someone who could supply cannabis, and the Applicant arranged to meet her after she sent him her photograph. [Para 30]
He told her he was 17 after she said she was 16, when in fact he was 29. [Para 30]
The Complainant was drawn in by the Applicant’s attention, apparent wealth, drugs, food and affection, but was in truth being groomed, used to prepare and bag cannabis and ketamine, and made to act as a drugs courier. [Para 31]
She became increasingly dependent, was left in a self-locking flat from which she could not leave, and was isolated in unpleasant conditions far from home and without local support. [Para 32]
The Applicant also took her to crack cocaine and heroin dens, and over about seven weeks he exploited her through fear, manipulation and deception until police located her in his flat after she had been missing from her children’s home. [Para 33][Para 34][Para 35]
The Applicant had previous convictions for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs and possession of a bladed article in a public place, and he told the pre-sentence report author of a difficult childhood in Afghanistan and escape to the United Kingdom as a teenage refugee. [Para 36][Para 37]
The sentencing judge rejected his account that he was himself being exploited and found instead that he was preying on others, profiting from drug dealing, and living a carefree, boastful lifestyle inconsistent with his claimed indebtedness. [Para 39]
The pre-sentence report assessed him as dangerous, the judge agreed, and that finding was not challenged. [Para 40][Para 41][Para 42]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Applicant had an arguable basis to contend that the sentence was manifestly excessive. [Para 48]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Zielinski |
Older authorities decided before the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Modern Slavery offences came into force were said to have limited value. [Para 48] |
The court held that R v Zielinski did not assist the Applicant because it was a ten-year-old case decided before the modern guidelines. [Para 48] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first noted that the sentencing judge had approached the case carefully and transparently, accepting that the offence fell within category 3B with a starting point of 6 years and a range of 5 to 8 years. [Para 42]
The judge then moved upward to 7½ years because of the many aggravating features, including the Applicant’s previous convictions, the drug offences on counts 2 and 3, the harm to the Complainant, and the totality principle. [Para 42]
She treated the offence as high in category 3, found medium culpability level B, and then reduced the term to 7 years to reflect limited mitigation. [Para 42]
She also found a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences, justifying a 2-year extended sentence, and there was no challenge to that conclusion. [Para 44]
The appeal court concluded that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the final sentence matched the evidence, the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, the severe impact on the vulnerable Complainant, and the Sentencing Council Guidelines. [Para 48]
The court further held that pre-guideline authorities such as R v Zielinski were of very limited assistance. [Para 48]
Holding and Implications
Leave to appeal and legal assistance were refused. [Para 48]
The direct effect was that the Applicant’s sentence remained in place, and the court indicated no broader precedent was created beyond confirming that older pre-guideline modern slavery cases had little utility on these facts. [Para 48]