"Exploitation" in the context of the offence of trafficking
21/07/2011
In R v K [2011] EWCA Crim 1691 the court recently examined the definition of “exploitation” in the context of the offence of trafficking. Ian Macdonald QC of GCN was interviewed for Lexis Nexis Current Awareness (published 21/7/11) and explained why this case is a reminder to practitioners that they cannot solely rely on domestic law.
Extracts from the article as follows:
" Ian Macdonald QC , also a barrister at Garden Court in London specialising in immigration and crime, explains that the case raised the issue of the proper construction of the AI(TC)A 2004, s 4(1) and “what directions need to be given on the law by the trial judge”
...“Having analysed these decisions [Siliadin v France and Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (Application 25965/04)] the court stated that it found assistance in what may be described as the hierarchy of the denial of personal autonomy to which art 4 and thus s 4 of the [AI(TC)A 2004] relate,” the barrister explains. “In descending order of gravity, therefore, ‘slavery’ stands at the top of the hierarchy, ‘servitude’ in the middle, and ‘forced or compulsory labour’ at the bottom. Since all these elements of the definition were very carefully analysed and explained by the court, the judgment certainly helps to clarify the descending hierarchy of exploitation falling within the definition of s 4(4). The judge however had not gone down this route in his summing up to the jury and this meant that the conviction had to be quashed.”
"What are the implications for practitioners? “This case is one further reminder to those prosecuting or defending in cases which involve immigration crimes that they have to move out of the narrow box of reliance only on domestic law,” the barrister argues; citing R v Abdalla; R v MV; R v Mohamed; R v Nofallah and R v LM."
Quick links
> R v K [2011] EWCA Crim 1691 judgment
