header-logo header-logo

05 May 2021 / ​Alexandra Felix KC , Ruth Broadbent
Issue: 7931 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Modern slavery: invisible handcuffs?

21123
Alexandra Felix QC & Ruth Broadbent examine the complexities of modern slavery within the UK’s criminal justice system
  • In R v DS, the Court of Appeal ruled that the issue of whether a defendant is a victim of human trafficking and modern slavery is a matter for the jury to decide, rather than the judge.
  • However, the judgment does not resolve the question of how a jury can determine a defendant’s status as a victim.

In February 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in R v DS [2020] EWCA Crim 285. The appeal arose from a terminatory ruling in a county lines drugs case, the judge having stayed the prosecution as an abuse of process in light of the Single Competent Authority’s (SCA) determination that the defendant, a child, was a victim of human trafficking. The appeal was allowed, with the court concluding that the introduction of the ‘modern slavery defence’ (s 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015)) meant

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll