Trafficking victims have convictions referred to appeal courts

1 Dec 2025 11:40 AM

Two men convicted in separate incidents of cannabis- related offences have had their convictions referred to the appellate courts by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) as both were victims of trafficking. 

Mr HR was convicted of cultivating cannabis in December 2017 at North Staffordshire Justice Centre, following his arrest at the property where he was living. More than 200 cannabis plants were seized. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.  

Mr HU was convicted of production of cannabis in August 2009 at Peterborough Crown Court. He was sentenced to 20 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution. 

When Mr HR was interviewed, he stated he did not know his address and had been forced to go there by foreign males a month earlier.  

When Mr HU was interviewed, he said that he was 15 years old, and though that was not accepted at the time, it is now recognised by government as the truth.

In both cases, issues of trafficking were raised early in the process.  

Mr HR was referred to the National Referral Mechanism as a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery, first receiving a negative conclusive grounds decision but on re-consideration, in February 2020, obtaining a positive conclusive grounds decision.  

Mr HU was referred to the UK Border Agency on the basis he may have been trafficked, but the CPS found no credible evidence that he had.  However, the UK Border Agency concluded that there were, in fact, reasonable grounds for believing that he had been trafficked. 

The CCRC received an application from Mr HR in September 2021 raising issues of exploitation. Mr HU applied in November 2022, having regard to a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, asking specifically, whether the state had failed to discharge its duty under Article 4 ECHR to protect victims of trafficking. 

In Mr HR’s case the CCRC believes that there is a real possibility that the CPS will accept the positive conclusive grounds decision, since there are no “clear reasons” to dispute it. If the CPS still prosecute him, there is a real possibility that the Crown Court will stop the continuation of proceedings as an abuse of process.   

Mr HR would, in any event, have the defence in s45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.  

In Mr HU’s case, the CCRC has concluded that there is a real possibility that his prosecution was an abuse of process as the CPS failed to give clear, rational and legally coherent grounds, consistent with the international definition of trafficking, for rejecting the positive trafficking determination.  

It is also clear Mr HU’s legal representatives dismissed trafficking concerns outright, accepted the CPS’ flawed reasoning and advised him to maintain a guilty plea, without ensuring that his plea was entered “in full awareness of the facts” and legal implications of his trafficking status. 

CCRC Chair Dame Vera Baird KC recently said:

“These referrals highlight that two vulnerable individuals have been let down by the justice system.  

“The CCRC has the responsibility to challenge failings like these so that future victims of trafficking and exploitation can be protected from similarly poor outcomes at a time when they are significantly vulnerable.” 

Notes to Editor:  

  1. As victims of trafficking, the identities of the applicants have been withheld. 
  2. The CCRC is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.     
  3. There are currently ten Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.   
  4. The CCRC usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.     
  5. The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.       
  6. If a conviction is referred to the Crown Court it is for the Court to decide whether to uphold the conviction. 
  7. More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk. The CCRC can be found on X, Facebook, Instagram (@the_ccrc) and Linkedin.