R v Tathagata Mandal
[2024] EWCA Crim 1194
R v Dineshkumar Thakoraka-Palmer
16 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 491
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of money laundering. He said he was forced into it because he was a victim of human trafficking. The court said even if that's true, he still committed a serious crime and should remain convicted.
Key Facts
- •Dineshkumar Thakoraka-Palmer convicted on 25 May 2017 of conspiracy to conceal criminal property.
- •Involved in a money laundering operation involving over £80 million.
- •Played a significant role in the conspiracy, acting as a courier and handling large sums of cash.
- •Subsequently identified as a potential victim of human trafficking.
- •Applied for an extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence, citing his victim status.
- •Prosecution acknowledged applicant's victim status but argued it didn't negate culpability.
- •Applicant claimed coercion by his co-accused, who absconded during trial.
- •Fresh evidence included medical reports and immigration documents supporting victim claim, but deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies.
Legal Principles
Principles regarding appeals relating to convictions before July 2015.
R v S(G) [2019] 1 Cr. App. R 7 at [76] and R v AAD (& others) [2022] 1 Cr. App. R 19 at [142]
Article 8 of the European Union Directive 2011/36 on preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings regarding non-prosecution of victims.
European Union Directive 2011/36
CPS guidance on non-prosecution of victims of slavery or trafficking, including a three-stage approach and consideration of 'compulsion'.
CPS Guidance
The defence of duress requires a threat of death or serious injury and the absence of reasonable evasive action.
Outcomes
Permission to appeal conviction refused.
Court found insufficient nexus between trafficking and offense to negate public interest in prosecution; applicant's evidence deemed unreliable; duress defense not applicable.
Permission to appeal sentence refused.
Sentence appropriately reflected vulnerability; immigration concerns not relevant to criminal court.
Anonymity revoked.
Court deemed anonymity not strictly necessary; principle of open justice prevails.