During their immigration application, many clients are concerned about a sensitive but realistic question: “If I have prior criminal records, will it impact my application? If I was forced to participate in a crime, would it still be possible to reverse the case?” Such situations are not infrequent in practice, especially in cases involving drugs and illegal labour. The victim of modern slavery or human trafficking is a common defence for affected individuals to mitigate unfavourable decisions.
The case we’re discussing today, R v BMJ , is about applications for leave to appeal against convictions for multiple drug-related and associated offences as well as sentences imposed across three distinct sets of offences. The applicant sought to mitigate his criminal liability and avoid adverse immigration consequences by attempting to plead a victim of modern slavery or trafficking . While the defence was unsuccessful in this instance, it provides a valuable lesson for similar cases in the future.
Background of R v BMJ
The applicant has a criminal record involving multiple offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for his convictions, including possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, possession of criminal property, carrying a bladed article, failing to surrender to custody, drug supply offences, and driving offences.
In November 2022, the Single Competent Authority (SCA) issued a conclusive grounds decision recognising him as a “victim of modern slavery in the UK during approximately 2007/2008 – April 2021 for the specific purpose of criminal exploitation” The applicant has since applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against convictions and sentences, submitting fresh evidence linked to his trafficking victim status. The applicant argues that this new context undermines prior findings and justifies revisiting the original decisions.
The Court fully considered the relevant sentencing guidelines, prior defence materials, and new evidence, and concluded as follows:
Regarding the appeal against sentence, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigating factors related to drug trafficking and debt. However, the Court found that the applicant did not credibly demonstrate that he was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking in connection with the offences at that time.
Appropriate reductions within the sentencing range had already been made, taking into account both the applicant’s prior convictions and the seriousness of the offences, rendering the sentence fair and proportionate.
The Court ruled out any abuse of process and found no other grounds that could affect the safety of the convictions; therefore, the application’s grounds were unarguable, and his applicant was refused.
Our thoughts
Authorities consider the conviction based on the following factors: 1) whether there is reason to believe that the individual is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking? 2) whether there is clear evidence of a credible common law defence of duress? 3) whether there is clear evidence of a statutory defence 4) whether it is in the public interest to prosecute the individual?
It is notable that, although the applicant was later referred through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process and ultimately recognised as a victim by the SCA, the Court did not rely solely on this finding. Instead, it examined the case as a whole.
Given the applicant’s inconsistent statements and lack of credibility, alongside prosecution evidence showing the applicant played an active role in drug distribution, the Court concluded that—while the applicant may have been in debt or under some pressure—there was no clear exploitative relationship linking the offences to trafficking. The applicant’s voluntary and leading involvement in the crimes was established. Even if the applicant qualified as a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, which could warrant some mitigation, the seriousness of the offences and the public interest justified prosecution.
This case highlights that in immigration matters involving criminal charges, especially serious crimes such as drug offences, claims of being a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery require strong, consistent evidence to influence both criminal liability and immigration outcomes. UK courts apply a high standard for such claims, and personal statements alone rarely succeed. Simple or late claims that conflict with the facts are usually rejected and can weaken the defence. Therefore, it is crucial that such claims should be supported by solid evidence.
For applicants with criminal records or facing serious charges, even if there are vulnerable circumstances such as being forced to commit crimes, prosecution may continue based on public interest. Such criminal records can seriously affect future immigration applications.
Applicants with these kinds of experiences shall seek professional legal advice early, which helps assess whether there are grounds to claim trafficking or Modern Slavery and allows for timely use of protection mechanisms, such as the NRM, to collect supporting evidence.
If you or your family members face similar complex situations, please contact Lisa Law today. Our professional team is ready to provide thorough assessments and strong support.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
