202403821 B2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1205

The submissions to this court - the grounds of appeal:

We shall summarise the submissions as to the merits by reference to the five grounds set out in paragraph 25 above.

Ground 1: Ms Ahluwalia submits that the convictions are unsafe because the police failed to comply with their Article 4 duty to investigate the applicant’s case and to refer her into the NRM, despite having taken those steps in Baldwin’s case and despite having considered O’Connor as a possible perpetrator of modern slavery.

Mr Ray realistically accepts that the police should have referred the applicant into the NRM, but failed to do so. He has not been able to identify why that failure occurred.

Ground 2: Ms Ahluwalia relies on the CPS’s published Guidance on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, which requires a four-stage approach to the decision whether to prosecute:

Is there a reason to believe that the person is a VMS? If yes, move to Q2. If not, you do not need to consider this assessment further.

Is there clear evidence of a credible common law defence of duress? If yes, then the case should not be charged or should be discontinued on evidential grounds. If not, move to Q3.

Is there clear evidence of a statutory defence under s45 of the 2015 Act? If yes, then the case should not be charged or should be discontinued on evidential grounds. If not, move to Q4.

Is it in the public interest to prosecute? This must be considered even where there is no clear evidence of duress, or all the elements of the statutory defence under s45, or where the offence is excluded under Schedule 4.”

Ms Ahluwalia submits that the CPS did not review the applicant’s case in relation to the potential statutory defence even though it had been raised in the BCM form and was in any event raised by Baldwin’s evidence.

Mr Ray, again realistically, accepts that the CPS should have reviewed the case in accordance with its Guidance. Again, he is unable to identify any reason for that failure, which occurred despite the course taken in relation to Baldwin. Mr Ray does not, however, accept that such a review would inevitably have led to decision that it would not be fair to try the applicant: he submits that a reasonable prosecutor, properly applying the Guidance, could have concluded that it remained appropriate to continue the prosecution against her.