## Facts

- Five appeals were heard together in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) because each appellant asserted she was (or had been) a victim of human trafficking and that her offending was connected to that exploitation.
- LM, MB, and DG had been brought to the UK and exploited in prostitution. After leaving prostitution, they assisted those controlling them by helping to import and train replacement women.
- LM, MB, and DG pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 53). On appeal, it was accepted that the factual basis ultimately relied on by the prosecution differed from earlier allegations: the women had not used threats or violence against others and acted under the influence of their controllers, though not to the level required for a full common-law duress defence.
- The prosecution later accepted that, on those revised facts, continuing with the prosecution of LM, MB, and DG served no public interest, but the convictions had already been entered.
- Betti Tabot, a Cameroonian national, pleaded guilty to possessing a false identity document with improper intent (Identity Cards Act 2006, s 25). She claimed she used the false document to escape sexual exploitation, but the material before the court did not corroborate that account.
- Yutunde Tijani, a Nigerian national, pleaded guilty to a document offence under the same provision. Evidence showed she had been trafficked in the past, but by the time of her offending she had been free from exploitation for several months.

## Issues

1. How should UK prosecutors and courts give effect to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (2005), in particular Article 26 (possibility of not imposing penalties where a victim was compelled to offend)?
2. What decision-making is required when credible trafficking indicators emerge, especially where the factual basis shifts toward trafficking-related coercion?
3. When does a failure to consider Article 26 and related prosecutorial guidance make a conviction unsafe, or justify intervention on abuse of process grounds?
4. How should courts distinguish offences compelled by trafficking from offences committed after the trafficking relationship has ended or where compulsion is not shown?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of LM, MB, and DG and quashed their convictions for controlling prostitution for gain because the public-interest decision to prosecute was not properly revisited once the accepted facts established their victim status and coercive influence connected to the offences.
- The court held that Article 26 does not create automatic immunity, but it requires a real and reasoned decision about non-penalisation where offending results from compulsion arising from trafficking.
- The court dismissed the appeals of Tabot and Tijani, concluding on the evidence that the necessary connection between trafficking-related compulsion and the document offences was not established (Tabot), and that the trafficking influence had ended well before the offence (Tijani).

## Legal Principles

- The UK is bound by the European Anti-Trafficking Convention, and Article 26 requires domestic authorities to provide for the possibility of not imposing penalties on trafficking victims for unlawful acts “to the extent” they were compelled to commit them.
- Article 26 operates through ordinary domestic mechanisms, including prosecutorial charging/public-interest judgment and (where appropriate) the court’s control of unfair proceedings.
- Non-penalisation is not a blanket rule: the focus is whether the offence was a product of trafficking-related compulsion; the closer and stronger the link, the stronger the case against prosecution.
- Where credible trafficking indicators exist, prosecutors must actively consider victim identification and reassess whether a prosecution remains in the public interest; that duty becomes acute if the factual basis shifts to accept trafficking and coercion.
- If the material shows a credible common-law defence (such as duress), the prosecution may fail on ordinary evidential grounds; but even where duress is not made out, Article 26 still requires attention to compulsion and fairness.
- Courts may treat a failure to address these matters as capable of making convictions unsafe and, in an appropriate case, may intervene to prevent proceedings that are fundamentally unfair.
- Past trafficking alone does not bar conviction: where exploitation has ceased and the defendant acts independently, prosecution and punishment may be consistent with Article 26.

## Conclusion

R. v. LM, MB, DG, Tabot, and Tijani confirms that Article 26 requires a real possibility of non-penalisation where trafficking victims are compelled to offend, implemented through careful prosecutorial review and, if needed, judicial control of unfairness. The convictions of LM, MB, and DG were quashed because the prosecution did not properly reconsider the public-interest basis for prosecuting once the accepted facts showed trafficking-related coercion, while the document-offence appeals failed because compulsion was not established or had ended before the offending.


R. v. LM, MB, DG, Tabot, and Tijani, [2010] EWCA Crim 2327, [2011] 1 Cr App R 12 (2010)