GS, R. v

GS, R. v

The conviction is not unsafe because, even accepting the applicant was a victim of trafficking, the level of compulsion did not extinguish culpability or render prosecution contrary to public interest. The chronology shows resilience and reasonable alternatives to escape compulsion. Fresh evidence regarding trafficking status is admitted, but retrospective medical evidence is excluded. Substantial injustice is not demonstrated to warrant exceptional leave.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: GS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Victims of Trafficking, Duress, Abuse of Process, Fresh Evidence, Change in Law, Public Interest in Prosecution
Criminal Law Human Trafficking Immigration Law Victims of Trafficking Duress Abuse of Process Fresh Evidence Change in Law +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

GS

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction is unsafe in light of fresh evidence and changes in law regarding victims of trafficking
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is not unsafe because, even accepting the applicant was a victim of trafficking, the level of compulsion did not extinguish culpability or render prosecution contrary to public interest. The chronology shows resilience and reasonable alternatives to escape compulsion. Fresh evidence regarding trafficking status is admitted, but retrospective medical evidence is excluded. Substantial injustice is not demonstrated to warrant exceptional leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for anonymity granted.
  • Fresh evidence (tribunal and competent authority decisions) admitted.