AAB v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 880
R v ABR
14 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 625
Court of Appeal
A young man was wrongly convicted of growing cannabis because the police didn't follow the rules about prosecuting victims of human trafficking. He was forced to work at the cannabis farm and was also suffering from mental health problems. The court threw out the case and said there wouldn't be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Applicant pleaded guilty to producing cannabis (Class B drug) on 24 October 2022.
- •Sentenced to eight months' detention in a young offender institution.
- •Applicant applied for an extension of time (396 days) for leave to appeal against conviction.
- •Applicant sought leave to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence and evidence of being a victim of trafficking.
- •Applicant was a victim of trafficking from Albania, forced to work at a cannabis farm to pay off a debt.
- •CPS policy on prosecuting victims of trafficking was not followed.
- •Applicant suffered from undiagnosed mental health problems (depression, anxiety, PTSD).
- •Conclusive Grounds Decision confirmed applicant's victim of trafficking status.
- •Prosecution conceded error and did not oppose the appeal.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process to prosecute a victim of trafficking while a referral to the National Referral Mechanism is in progress.
CPS policy and case law.
A guilty plea does not preclude an appeal if the plea was entered due to a lack of understanding of the defence or other procedural errors.
Case law.
Cases where prosecution conduct amounts to abuse of process.
R v AAD, AAH and AAI [2022] EWCA Crim 106; R v AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23; R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903.
Outcomes
Appeal granted, extension of time allowed.
The prosecution's conduct was in error; fresh evidence suggests the guilty plea was equivocal and the applicant may have been deprived of a successful defence.
Conviction quashed.
The conviction was unsafe due to the abuse of process and the possibility that the guilty plea resulted from a defective understanding of the position.
No retrial ordered.
Given the basis on which the conviction was quashed, a retrial would be inappropriate.