Court of Appeal delivers important judgment confirming that ‘menace of penalty’ is not a useful phrase for jury directions on children’s modern slavery defence

Peter Wilcock KC and Maria Munir were instructed as fresh counsel in the appeal against conviction in R v Finch (Charlotte) [2026] EWCA Crim 477, an important judgment for directions on the children’s defence under section 45(4) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. 

The appellant, CF, was convicted on five out of 12 counts, including conspiracies to convey prohibited articles into prison and supply controlled drugs, and the unauthorised transmission of image or sound by electronic communication from within a prison. CF did not give evidence at trial, but her case was that she was deliberately recruited, groomed, and manipulated as a child victim of ‘forced or compulsory labour’, or trafficking. 

Leave to appeal was granted for the way in which directions were left to the jury, that evidence of a ‘menace of penalty’ was required to establish that CF’s offending was in direct consequence of ‘forced or compulsory labour’. In thorough written and oral submissions, counsel argued that the defence for children must be different to that set out in decades of domestic and international authorities which had until now focused on the defence for adults. ‘Menace of penalty’ introduced the compulsion which was not required for children. Attention was drawn to the new Crown Court Compendium which no longer used the legalistic phrase in directions on the highly complex statutory scheme.

In its reserved judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with counsel and the updated Compendium that there are better ways to explain the defence without setting the bar too high for children. The essence of the definition of slavery, including forced or compulsory labour, is that the child committed the offence because they were put under pressure; compulsion is not a necessary element of the defence. Although the learned judge’s directions were otherwise sufficient, the phrase ‘menace of penalty’ was “apt to confuse and mislead jurors because its meaning is not self-evident in modern English.” [32].

The Court of Appeal was extremely grateful to all counsel for their help.

Peter Wilcock KC and Maria Munir were assigned by the Registrar for the Court of Appeal proceedings only. The full judgment can be accessed here.