header-logo header-logo

First sentencing guidelines for modern slavery

12 August 2021
Categories: Legal News , Criminal , In Court , Human rights
printer mail-detail
Guidelines on sentencing modern slavery offences have been published today

The Sentencing Council said the new guidelines would cover four offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. They will apply to: holding someone in slavery, servitude or forced labour; human trafficking, transporting people for purposes of exploitation; committing an offence with the intention of committing a human trafficking offence; and breach of a slavery and trafficking prevention order or a slavery and trafficking risk order.

The Sentencing Council has published its first set of guidelines for offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, including up to 18 years in prison for offenders in a leading role, who expect substantial advantage and who expose victims to an extremely high risk of death.

The guidelines, which must be followed unless the court finds it contrary to the interests of justice to do so, come into effect on 1 October. They apply to: holding someone in slavery, servitude or forced labour; human trafficking, transporting people for purposes of exploitation; committing an offence with the intention of committing a human trafficking offence; and breach of a slavery and trafficking prevention order or a slavery and trafficking risk order.

The guidelines recognise the impact of coercion on victims―offenders coerced or intimidated into committing these offences or who are themselves victims will have that fact recognised by the courts and could receive comparatively low sentences. The guidelines note the harm caused to victims may not always be obvious and direct courts to consider all the facts of the case even where a victim is unwilling or unable to give evidence.

Human trafficking usually concerns recruiting, harbouring, receiving or transferring people across borders but can also be domestic, such as county lines trafficking and sexual assault.

The guidance proposes an uplift of two years on sentences where offenders have committed an offence to facilitate a trafficking offence. However, judges can impose up to ten years or, where the underlying offence is kidnapping or false imprisonment, life sentences.

Sentencing Council member, Rosina Cottage QC said: ‘Offending can take place over a long period of time, sometimes for years, and these new guidelines take account not only of the actions by the offender, but the impact on the victim.

‘Offending can range from large-scale operations, with substantial financial gain, to offences carried out by offenders who are themselves victims either through coercion and intimidation and the sentencing range has been developed to reflect this.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll