R v Faisel Khalil
[2024] EWCA Crim 810
FGH v R
6 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1353
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of having a gun and appealed, saying he was forced to have it and is intellectually disabled. The court said the jury didn't believe him, and even if he was forced, the crime was too serious to let him go. They also said his lawyers should have asked for help for him at the trial, but he didn't show it made the trial unfair.
Key Facts
- •FGH was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life in 2014.
- •He was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.
- •He now seeks to appeal his conviction, claiming he was a victim of trafficking and intellectually disabled.
- •Fresh evidence includes psychological assessments indicating intellectual impairment and suggestibility.
- •The SCA concluded FGH was a victim of trafficking.
- •FGH's trial representatives did not apply for a defence intermediary.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process test in trafficking cases: Was the dominant force of compulsion sufficient to reduce culpability to a point where prosecution wasn't in the public interest? Or would the applicant not have been prosecuted in the public interest?
R v S(G) [2018] EWCA Crim 1824
CPS Guidance on prosecuting potential victims of trafficking: Three-stage assessment involving belief of trafficking, clear evidence of duress, and public interest in prosecution.
CPS Guidance to prosecutors (material time)
Intermediaries should only be appointed if other adaptations to the trial process are insufficient to ensure effective participation.
R v Thomas (Dean) [2020] EWCA Crim 117
Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (defence for slavery or trafficking victims) does not have retrospective effect.
CS and LE [2021] EWCA Crim 134
Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of slavery and forced labour).
ECHR
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
Grounds of appeal not reasonably arguable. The jury rejected FGH's defence of duress. The court found no arguable abuse of process and no basis to suggest the trial was unfair due to lack of an intermediary.
Extension of time refused.
Would serve no purpose as grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable.
Admission of fresh evidence refused.
Grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable.
Leave to appeal refused.
Grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable.