AAB v R
The conviction is unsafe because the applicant was trafficked for the purposes of exploitation and compelled to commit the offence; there was no realistic alternative open to her. Fresh evidence is admitted, and the nexus between trafficking and offending is established. The prosecution should have been stayed, and substantial injustice would result from upholding the conviction.
- Parties
- Appellant: AAB; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 July 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, conviction quashed
- Legal Topics
- Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking, Compulsion Defence, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Change of Law, Abuse of Process, Deportation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AAB
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to the applicant's status as a victim of trafficking and compulsion to commit the offence
- 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
- 3 Whether there is a sufficient nexus between trafficking and the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction is unsafe because the applicant was trafficked for the purposes of exploitation and compelled to commit the offence; there was no realistic alternative open to her. Fresh evidence is admitted, and the nexus between trafficking and offending is established. The prosecution should have been stayed, and substantial injustice would result from upholding the conviction.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, conviction quashed
Orders
- Conviction quashed
- Extension of time granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment