202403821 B2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1205

The grounds of appeal:

The grounds of appeal are set out in 14 paragraphs, but can conveniently be summarised as being based on the following five submissions (to which, for convenience, we shall refer as grounds 1-5):

There were clear indicators that the applicant was a VMS, but the police failed to comply with their positive duty under Article 4 of the Convention to investigate and to refer the applicant to the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”).

In contrast to the position with Baldwin, the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) failed to apply and review the public interest test in the applicant’s case.

The applicant’s prosecution was an abuse of the process of the court.

If the statutory defence under s45 of the MSA 2015 had been advanced at trial, it would probably have succeeded: it is separate and distinct from the defence of duress.

The judge’s directions as to counts 3 and 4, and as to the issues of bad character and propensity, were insufficient and wrong.

The applicant’s primary submission is that the above grounds are made out on the evidence and indicators which were available at the trial; but she seeks in addition to rely on a further statement by herself, and on the following, as fresh evidence in support of her appeal:

In a report dated 6 December 2023, a forensic psychologist opined that the applicant met the criteria for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), depressive disorder and anxiety disorder.

On 9 January 2024, the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (“IECA”) made a conclusive grounds decision in the applicant’s favour, that on the balance of probabilities she was a VMS in 2020-21 for the specific purposes of forced criminality.

It is relevant to note that on 22 September 2023 the IECA had informed the applicant that, after assessing her case, there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that she was a VMS. The IECA referred to inconsistencies between the account which the applicant had given to them, and her evidence at trial. A month later, however, the IECA made an initial decision that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that she was a VMS. That decision was confirmed on 9 January 2024, after the IECA had been asked to consider the psychologist’s report.