Lurdita Baniulyte [2025] EWCA Crim 1205
Summary
Lurdita Baniulyte appealed her convictions for drug offences, seeking an extension of time to appeal, leave to adduce fresh evidence, and anonymity. Her main argument was that she was a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking (VMS/VOT) and should have been able to rely on the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. She also argued that the police and CPS failed in their duties to investigate and refer her to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), and that her prosecution was an abuse of process. The CPS did not oppose the appeal on the merits, but did oppose the anonymity application.
Baniulyte was convicted in 2022 of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs and possession with intent to supply, after being found with drugs and cash in a flat used for drug dealing.
At trial, her defence was duress: she claimed she was forced to supply drugs due to threats and violence from others, but did not raise the statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015.
She was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment and did not appeal within the 28-day time limit.
Fresh evidence included a psychologist’s report diagnosing PTSD and a conclusive grounds decision from the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) that she was a VMS for the purposes of forced criminality
.
Grounds of Appeal:
Police failed to investigate and refer her as a potential VMS, breaching Article 4 ECHR.
CPS failed to review her case in line with its own guidance on modern slavery.
Her prosecution was an abuse of process.
The statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015, if advanced, would probably have succeeded.
The judge’s directions on certain counts and bad character were insufficient.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
The Court found that the failures of the police and CPS did not, by themselves, render the convictions unsafe, as the evidence supporting a VMS defence was available at trial and could have been raised.
However, the key issue was that Baniulyte was not advised about the statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015, which is distinct from duress and could have succeeded even if duress failed. The decision not to advance this defence was not made by Baniulyte herself, but by her counsel, and she was denied the opportunity to make an informed choice.
The Court concluded that this failure deprived her of a defence that quite probably would have succeeded, amounting to a clear injustice.
The appeal was allowed, her convictions quashed, and the application for an extension of time was granted.
The Court refused her application for anonymity and reporting restrictions, holding that there was no automatic right to anonymity for adult defendants in such cases, and that no cogent evidence was provided to show that such an order was strictly necessary. The principle of open justice outweighed her Article 8 rights in this context.
See para 111 for procedural guidance in relation to anonymity applications.
Baniulyte was convicted in 2022 of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs and possession with intent to supply, after being found with drugs and cash in a flat used for drug dealing.
At trial, her defence was duress: she claimed she was forced to supply drugs due to threats and violence from others, but did not raise the statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015.
She was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment and did not appeal within the 28-day time limit.
Fresh evidence included a psychologist’s report diagnosing PTSD and a conclusive grounds decision from the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) that she was a VMS for the purposes of forced criminality
.
Grounds of Appeal:
Police failed to investigate and refer her as a potential VMS, breaching Article 4 ECHR.
CPS failed to review her case in line with its own guidance on modern slavery.
Her prosecution was an abuse of process.
The statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015, if advanced, would probably have succeeded.
The judge’s directions on certain counts and bad character were insufficient.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
The Court found that the failures of the police and CPS did not, by themselves, render the convictions unsafe, as the evidence supporting a VMS defence was available at trial and could have been raised.
However, the key issue was that Baniulyte was not advised about the statutory defence under s45 MSA 2015, which is distinct from duress and could have succeeded even if duress failed. The decision not to advance this defence was not made by Baniulyte herself, but by her counsel, and she was denied the opportunity to make an informed choice.
The Court concluded that this failure deprived her of a defence that quite probably would have succeeded, amounting to a clear injustice.
The appeal was allowed, her convictions quashed, and the application for an extension of time was granted.
The Court refused her application for anonymity and reporting restrictions, holding that there was no automatic right to anonymity for adult defendants in such cases, and that no cogent evidence was provided to show that such an order was strictly necessary. The principle of open justice outweighed her Article 8 rights in this context.
See para 111 for procedural guidance in relation to anonymity applications.