R v AJW
[2023] EWCA Crim 803
R v BXR
10 November 2022
[2022] EWCA Crim 1483
Court of Appeal
A man was wrongly convicted because he was forced to use a fake passport to get a job due to being trafficked and exploited. The court realized this and overturned his conviction, keeping his identity secret to protect him.
Key Facts
- •BXR, a Nigerian national, arrived in the UK in 2007 on a visitor's visa and overstayed.
- •In 2012, he used a false passport to obtain employment at a noodle factory.
- •In 2017, he was charged with four offences related to the use of the false passport and illegal working.
- •He pleaded guilty to three indictment offences and one summary offence.
- •He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment (concurrently with a 3-month sentence for the summary offence).
- •BXR claimed he was a victim of trafficking, presenting fresh evidence after his conviction.
- •The fresh evidence detailed a history of trafficking and exploitation in Nigeria and the UK, including forced labour and sexual exploitation.
Legal Principles
Setting aside convictions for victims of trafficking where offences were committed before the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Various Court of Appeal decisions including R v M(L), R v N and L, R v THN & L(C), R v Joseph (Verna), R v L & N, R v S(G), R v AAD, R v AGM, and R v BYA.
International obligations towards victims of trafficking (Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005, Article 26).
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (CETS No.197), Article 26 and Article 4.
CPS guidance on prosecution of trafficking victims (2013 Guidance).
CPS guidance published on 29 August 2013.
The test for unsafe convictions.
Case law
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
The Court found a strong nexus between BXR's trafficking and the offences. The degree of compulsion was high due to his trauma, cognitive difficulties, and continued exploitation, rendering prosecution against the public interest. The CPS, had they known the full facts, likely would not have prosecuted.
Anonymity order maintained.
To protect the appellant given the findings of trafficking and exploitation.