R v BKM

R v BKM

The applicant's account of being compelled to commit the offences due to trafficking was not credible, with significant inconsistencies and implausible explanations. The evidence did not support that his trafficked status was relevant to the offences or that a section 45 defence would have succeeded. The prosecution would have proceeded even with full knowledge of the applicant's circumstances. The sentence was lenient and appropriate, and fresh evidence did not meet the statutory test for admission.

Parties
Respondent: REX; Applicant: BKM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; fresh evidence not admitted.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Victims of Trafficking, Section 45 Modern Slavery Act Defence, Abuse of Process, Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Human Trafficking Modern Slavery Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Victims of Trafficking Section 45 Modern Slavery Act Defence Abuse of Process +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REX

Respondent

BKM

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was a victim of trafficking at the time of offending
  2. 2 Whether CPS guidance on victims of trafficking was properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the applicant received proper advice regarding the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's account of being compelled to commit the offences due to trafficking was not credible, with significant inconsistencies and implausible explanations. The evidence did not support that his trafficked status was relevant to the offences or that a section 45 defence would have succeeded. The prosecution would have proceeded even with full knowledge of the applicant's circumstances. The sentence was lenient and appropriate, and fresh evidence did not meet the statutory test for admission.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; fresh evidence not admitted.

Orders

  • Applications dismissed
  • Fresh evidence not received under section 23(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1968