R v BNN
[2024] EWCA Crim 991
R v Taun Van Nguyen
9 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1376
Court of Appeal
A man pleaded guilty to drug crimes, later claiming he was forced to do so because he was a victim of human trafficking. The court reviewed his case and found he had good legal advice but chose to plead guilty to get a shorter sentence. His appeal was rejected, and he'll have to serve his time.
Key Facts
- •Taun Van Nguyen pleaded guilty to producing and possessing with intent to supply cannabis in November 2017.
- •He claimed he was forced to work at a cannabis factory due to being trafficked.
- •A reasonable grounds decision confirming his trafficking victim status was made in September 2017.
- •A conclusive grounds decision confirming his trafficking victim status was made in February 2022.
- •Nguyen was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
- •He applied for leave to appeal against conviction, citing inadequate legal advice and his trafficked status.
- •His legal team argued his guilty plea was unsafe due to inadequate legal advice regarding trafficking and duress defenses.
- •The court reviewed contemporaneous notes and counsel's testimony, finding that Nguyen was properly advised but chose to plead guilty to mitigate his sentence.
Legal Principles
Test for unsafe convictions following guilty pleas.
R v AAD & Ors [2022] 1 Cr App R(S)
Modern Slavery Act 2015, Section 45: Defence of duress and trafficking.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
International obligations regarding the protection of trafficking victims.
Council of Europe Convention
Principle of open justice.
Not specified, implied in the judgement.
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The court found the applicant was properly advised of his defenses but chose to plead guilty to reduce his sentence. The contemporaneous evidence contradicts his claim of inadequate advice.
Extension of time refused.
Futile given refusal of leave to appeal.
Anonymity refused.
The principle of open justice prevails, and there's insufficient justification for anonymity despite the conclusive grounds decision, given reservations about supporting evidence.