The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the conviction of Mr M to the Crown Court.
Mr M, an Iranian national, arrived at Heathrow Airport in December 2008.
He approached an Immigration Officer on duty at Immigration Control and stated that he did not have a passport and claimed asylum.
Mr M told the immigration authorities that he had fled from Iran, travelling on foot and by lorry to Turkey where a family member paid an agent €10,000 to arrange his journey to the UK.
Mr M was taken to Heathrow Police Station and interviewed under caution in the presence of his solicitor and an interpreter. He was charged with failing to produce an immigration document contrary to section 2(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
In January 2009, Mr M pleaded guilty at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment.
Because Mr M pleaded guilty in a magistrate’s court he was not entitled to appeal against his conviction.
Mr M’s Home Office Screening Interview was conducted on the day of his arrival in the UK, but he did not have his substantive asylum interview until July 2013. He was subsequently granted asylum with five years’ leave to remain on the basis that he was an active member of the banned political party, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI). Mr M fled Iran when he learned that a KDPI colleague had been arrested and tortured and was likely to have given his name to the authorities. While Mr M was in hiding before leaving Iran, his father was detained and tortured in an attempt to find out where he was.
Mr M applied to the Commission for a review of his case in April 2014.
After a detailed review of the case, the Commission has decided to refer Mr M’s conviction to the Crown Court. The referral is made on the basis that he should have been entitled to
rely on the statutory defence available under section 2(4)(c) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) etc. Act 2004; namely that he had a reasonable excuse for not producing a genuine immigration document.
The Commission therefore considers there is a real possibility that the Crown Court will conclude that, in all the circumstances, it should allow Mr M to vacate his guilty plea on the basis that he was deprived of a defence that was likely to have succeeded.
This case is one of several involving asylum seekers and refugees that the Commission has referred to the appeal courts in recent months. Several other cases raising similar issues are currently being investigated by the Commission.
Two articles written by the Commission discussing other cases and explaining the issues and the law in this area can be seen on the Law Society Gazette website at:
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 0121 232 0906 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Notes for editors
1. The Commission has anonymised Mr M in this press release because of concerns about his safety and security.
2. The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
3. There are currently 12 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
4. The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
5. The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
6. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.