AAC v R

AAC v R

The appellant was a victim of trafficking, her offending was directly caused by compulsion from her traffickers, and her culpability was effectively extinguished. There was no public interest in prosecuting her. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: AAC; Respondent: REX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Unsafe Conviction, Victims of Trafficking, Public Interest in Prosecution, Fresh Evidence, Anonymity Orders
Criminal Law Human Trafficking Public Law Abuse of Process Unsafe Conviction Victims of Trafficking Public Interest in Prosecution Fresh Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAC

Appellant

REX

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a victim of trafficking at the time of the offences
  2. 2 Whether there was a sufficient nexus between the trafficking and the offending
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution was in the public interest or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was a victim of trafficking, her offending was directly caused by compulsion from her traffickers, and her culpability was effectively extinguished. There was no public interest in prosecuting her. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions quashed
  • Reporting restriction order for anonymity of appellant