BMJ v R
The applicant was not a victim of trafficking or modern slavery during the relevant period. There was no abuse of process in prosecuting him, and the sentences imposed sufficiently reflected any mitigation. The grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence are unarguable.
- Parties
- Applicant: BMJ; Respondent: REX
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 June 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Fresh Evidence
- Outcome
- Applications for extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and to introduce fresh evidence refused.
- Legal Topics
- Modern Slavery, Trafficking, Drug Offences, Abuse of Process, Sentencing, Duress, Article 4 ECHR
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
BMJ
Applicant
REX
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Fresh Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery at the material time
- 2 Whether the prosecution of the applicant was an abuse of process
- 3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive given alleged mitigation
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant was not a victim of trafficking or modern slavery during the relevant period. There was no abuse of process in prosecuting him, and the sentences imposed sufficiently reflected any mitigation. The grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence are unarguable.
Court Disposition
Applications for extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and to introduce fresh evidence refused.
Orders
- Extension of time refused for all sets of offences.
- Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
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