On 6 June 2016, the Applicant (N), a Vietnamese national, was charged with the production of a Class B drug (cannabis). He had been discovered alone inside the loft of a Birmingham property in which 411 cannabis plants were being cultivated. At trial it transpired that N had been brought to the UK via an agent and was instructed to feed the plants in order to repay costs incurred for his passage. He ate and slept in the property and was not allowed to leave. In mitigation, N’s advocate referred to him as ‘a relatively naı̈ve 24-year-old who . . . was certainly exploited and coerced’ (at [11]). On 7 July 2016, following advice from his solicitor, N pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. In sentencing, the judge acknowledged that N was ‘taken advantage of by the people who brought [him] here’ and ‘used . . . as a gardener for their cannabis factory’ (at [12]). Despite this, the possibility of N being a victim of trafficking (VOT) was not raised. Following conviction, N was served with a decision to deport. An application for asylum was made on the basis that he was a VOT. Asylum proceedings brought to light N’s previous exploitation and it was discovered that he had a history of being trafficked and enslaved from the age of 13. He received a positive Reasonable Grounds decision and Conclusive Grounds (CG) decision, but was refused asylum. An appeal before the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in N’s favour found him to be a VOT and granted him limited leave to remain. N sought an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and adduce fresh evidence, including the CG decision and FTT report, pursuant to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s 23. It was submitted that the conviction was unsafe due to the fact that, as a VOT he should not have been prosecuted; that he would have had a viable defence in law under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015), s 45 had the clear signs of his victimisation been raised (at [26] and [28]). The grounds of appeal were twofold: (i) the CPS should not have made the original decision to charge or prosecute N; and (ii) when the possible trafficking concerns were raised at the Crown Court, proceedings should have been adjourned or stayed. The Crown contended that the decision to prosecute was in the public interest; there was insufficient evidence to satisfy s 45(1)(d) of the defence, namely that N had no realistic alternative to committing the offence, citing several observations which would have justified him engaging with UK authorities (at [32]).

中文翻译：

---

现代奴隶制的合理受害者：R v N [2019] EWCA Crim 984

2016 年 6 月 6 日，申请人 (N) 是一名越南国民，被控生产 B 类药物（大麻）。他是在伯明翰一处种植了 411 株大麻植物的房产的阁楼内被发现的。在审判中发现 N 是通过代理人带到英国的，并被指示喂养植物以偿还他通过的费用。他在屋内吃住，不许离开。在缓解方面，N 的拥护者称他为“一个相对天真的 24 岁的人”。. . 肯定是被剥削和胁迫的”（见 [11]）。2016 年 7 月 7 日，根据律师的建议，N 认罪并被判处四个月监禁。在量刑中，法官承认 N 被“将 [他] 带到这里的人利用了”并“使用了 . . . 作为他们大麻工厂的园丁”（见 [12]）。尽管如此，并没有提出 N 成为人口贩卖受害者 (VOT) 的可能性。定罪后，N 被送达驱逐出境的决定。庇护申请是根据他是 VOT 提出的。庇护程序揭露了 N 之前的剥削，并发现他从 13 岁起就有被贩卖和奴役的历史。他收到了积极的合理理由决定和结论性理由 (CG) 决定，但被拒绝庇护。向第一层法庭 (FTT) 提出的有利于 N 的上诉认定他为 VOT，并授予他有限的居留许可。N 寻求延长上诉许可的时间，以对定罪提出上诉并提供新证据，包括 CG 决定和 FTT 报告，根据 1968 年《刑事上诉法》第 23 条。据认为，由于作为 VOT 不应起诉他，因此定罪是不安全的；根据《2015 年现代奴隶制法案》（MSA 2015），他本可以在法律上进行可行的辩护，第 45 条已经提出了他受害的明显迹象（在 [26] 和 [28]）。上诉的理由有两个：(i) CPS 不应作出指控或起诉 N 的最初决定；(ii) 当皇家法院提出可能的贩运问题时，诉讼程序本应延期或中止。官方辩称，起诉的决定符合公共利益；没有足够的证据来满足抗辩的第 45(1)(d) 条，即 N 没有现实的替代犯罪行为，