Ms T

Ms T was arrested in July 2014 after police raided a property adapted for growing cannabis.

Later that month Ms T appeared at Hendon Magistrates’ Court where, on the advice of a solicitor, she pleaded guilty to the production of cannabis. She was later sentenced at Harrow Crown Court to six months’ imprisonment.

Because Ms T pleaded guilty in Magistrates’ Court she had no right of appeal.

In 2015, the First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber upheld her appeal against deportation and in doing so found that Ms T had been a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, then unpaid domestic service and finally work in a cannabis factory.

In 2016, the Home Office granted her refugee status. In early 2017 the Home Office recognised Ms T as a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation; in 2019 it recognised her as a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of forced criminality.

She applied to the CCRC for a review of her conviction in September 2018.

Following review, the CCRC concluded that there had been clear indicators at the time of Ms T’s arrest, conviction and sentencing that she had been trafficked within the UK for the purposes of forced criminality and was compelled to commit criminal offences as a direct consequence of her trafficked situation.

However, the Crown prosecution Service (CPS), the police, the prosecution, defence representatives and the Court did not instigate any further enquiries.

Had the CPS applied its own guidance, complied with the UK’s obligations to victims of trafficking and reached an informed decision, it would have, or might well have, decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Ms T.

In the alternative, had the defence advised Ms T correctly to enter a not guilty plea, Ms T could have elected Crown Court trial and advanced the argument that the failure of the CPS to follow its own guidance amounted to a breach of the UK’s obligations under Article 26 of the Trafficking Convention, in which case the Court would have, or might well have, stayed the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process.

Consequently, there was a real possibility the Crown Court would conclude that to allow Ms T’s guilty plea to stand would be an affront to justice and so would allow Ms T to vacate her plea and, were she to be re-prosecuted, stay the proceedings.

The CCRC referred the conviction in January 2020.

The Crown Court quashed the conviction in June 2020.