R v K (Modern Slavery)
[2018] EWCA Crim 1432
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Trafficking within the UK under s.4(1A)(b) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 is complete once the defendant intentionally arranges or facilitates a person's travel with a view to their exploitation; actual exploitation need not be proved. Where the case rests on a child being chosen for use on the grounds of youth, the child's age and the likelihood that an adult would refuse need only be factors in the choice — more than minimal, but not the sole or main ground — and the prosecution need not prove absence of consent, prove coercion, or call the child to give evidence.
Facts
Drug dealers who ran 'county lines' supplying cocaine and heroin from London to a south-coast town, and who had already been convicted of conspiracy to supply, were charged on a second indictment with trafficking five child couriers aged 14 to 16 for exploitation contrary to s.4(1A)(b) of the 2004 Act. Telephone evidence connected each defendant to the children's trips, including booking taxis for them and sending texted travel directions. The trial judge ruled there was no case to answer, and the prosecution appealed against that terminating ruling under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal held that the judge's ruling contained a number of errors of law: she wrongly required youth to be the sole ground of the choice, treated the likelihood of an adult refusing as a free-standing element, thought the child's willingness to volunteer relevant, focused on initial 'recruitment' rather than the statutory word 'chosen', and took into account matters not in evidence. Taking the prosecution case at its highest, there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on all counts. The appeal was allowed, the ruling reversed, and the trial ordered to resume before a new jury and a different judge.
Key Quotes
"In the present context the prosecution need only establish that the age of B and the likelihood of an adult refusing are two factors, possibly amongst many others, which formed a part of the defendant’s thinking. Each ground must be “a” factor but need not be the “main” or “principal” factor."
— The Court at [54](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"The prosecution does not need to prove a lack of consent on the part of the young courier or any element of coercion."
— The Court at [60](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Authority on the elements of internal child trafficking under s.4 of the 2004 Act; the definition of exploitation as applied to children remains unchanged in s.3(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help