202403821 B2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1205

The criminal proceedings:

The applicant was charged with two offences of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug (crack cocaine – count 1, and diamorphine – count 2), and two offences of possessing a controlled drug of class A with intent (crack cocaine – count 3, and diamorphine – count 4).

The applicant was sent for trial at the Crown Court. Her representative in the magistrates’ court stated on the Better Case Management form (“the BCM form”) that the applicant was:

“… potentially the victim of modern slavery, there is also a possible duress defence in relation to the supply of drugs. She has been forced to sell drugs to pay off a debt owed to dealers. She has been the victim of serious violence and threats.”

Another accused, Jamie O’Connor, was charged with offences of being concerned in the supply of drugs from Baldwin’s flat, and with an offence of requiring Baldwin to perform forced or compulsory labour, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the MSA 2015.

In November 2021 the applicant filed a defence statement saying that she had acted under duress: she was a drug user, in debt, and believed that threats towards her or her family would be carried out if she did not supply drugs to others. Her statement said that she had been escorted to Baldwin’s flat by two men, and the presence of weapons in the flat reinforced her fears.

In a written submission in January 2022, the applicant’s representatives referred to the charges against O’Connor, and invited the prosecution to review whether the applicant’s prosecution was in the public interest.

Later that month, the applicant filed a supplementary defence statement referring to Baldwin’s account of having been made to do acts against his will. Her counsel again invited the prosecution to review the case, on the ground that the applicant was as much a victim as Baldwin was.

O’Connor pleaded guilty to offences of being concerned in the supply of diamorphine and crack cocaine. He maintained his not guilty plea to the charge under s1(1)(b) of the MSA 2015, which was ordered to lie on the file.

The applicant did not apply to stay her prosecution as an abuse of the process. In August 2022, she stood trial in the Crown Court at Aylesbury, before HH Judge Sheridan and a jury.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was knowingly involved in the supply of class A drugs. They relied on the 2014 convictions as showing a propensity to become involved in supplying class A drugs to others.

Baldwin gave evidence for the prosecution . He stated that the applicant was doing what she was told and seemed “all right with it”: she chopped up drugs, and had a say in whether she worked or not.

The applicant did not seek to rely on a statutory defence under s45 of the MSA 2015. Her defence at trial was one of duress. She did not dispute the facts alleged against her, and accepted that, but for duress, she would be guilty of the offences charged.

The applicant gave evidence to the following effect: born in Lithuania, she came to the United Kingdom when aged 11; began using class A drugs when aged 17 or 18; and committed the offences in 2013 because she was a heroin addict, forced to supply drugs to repay her drug debt. She feared she would be killed, or her family hurt, if she did not comply.

As to the present offences, the applicant’s evidence was that she had been taken from Bognor Regis to Baldwin’s flat in Aylesbury, and made to supply drugs to others, by men related to those of whom she had been in fear in 2013. She stated that the men had threatened and sexually abused her; they had weapons in the flat, and she feared death or serious injury to herself, her mother and her sister if she did not comply.

The judge directed the jury as to the defence of duress, making clear that it was for the prosecution to disprove that defence, and provided a route to verdict which required the jury to consider five questions: (1) was the applicant threatened in the way she said she was? (2) did she do what she did because she genuinely and reasonably believed that if she did not do it, she would be killed or seriously injured either immediately or almost immediately? (3) before the applicant acted as she did, did she have an opportunity to escape from/avoid the threats without death or serious injury to herself which a reasonable person in her situation would have taken? (4) would a reasonable person in the applicant’s situation, and believing what the applicant did, have been caused to do what the applicant did? (5) had the applicant voluntarily put herself in a position in which she knew or ought to have known she might be compelled to commit crime by threats of violence made by other people?

The judge also directed the jury as to the previous offences, and the applicant’s alleged propensity to commit offences of the kind charged.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. At a later hearing, the applicant was sentenced on each count to concurrent terms of 40 months’ imprisonment.

No appeal was brought at the time. However, the applicant subsequently instructed fresh legal representatives, and the present applications were made.