In the Dock

examined, initial suspicions arose as to how they had been obtained as the alleged father’snationality, which was named on all, was not consistent. It further transpired that the defendant hadobtained her British passport using a third party’s birth certificate. The defendant was able to obtainfurther British passports for two of the trafficked children by claiming them as her children. This led tothe defendant entering guilty pleas on the offences of obtaining false passports and unlawfulassistance into the UK, as well as supporting a conviction for child cruelty.Trust between the trafficked child and CJS actors is seen by the majority of interviewed stakeholdersas imperative to enabling the child to disclose their experiences resulting in the identification of thetrafficked child - one law enforcement officer stated: “The first point of contact can be make or breakwith a child victim.” The reaction of practitioners to the child and whether the child feels safe and in aprotective environment 348 also affects the child’s ability to disclose their experiences. If theseconditions are not met this can have significant ramifications on evidence gathering for a criminaltrafficking investigation.Despite pockets of good practice across the UK, there remains a culture of disbelief among frontlinepractitioners when listening to children’s disclosures. 349 It was noted that agencies, in particular UKBAstaff, neglected this duty in their dealings with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; some ofwhom may be potential victims of trafficking. 350 There is widespread cross-sector concern that non-UKchild victims of trafficking are seen as immigrants first, and children (or even victims of crime) second.Conversely, research for this report raises concerns that children trafficked from Romania, an EUmember, are slipping under the radar because they are less likely to have immigration issues. Thismay be due to a lack of awareness and training around the issue, but there is also concern byrespondents that children with irregular migration status in the UK are not prioritised by localauthorities, particularly in the face of up to 40% budget cuts. 351Such attitudes and approaches run contrary to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild (UNCRC), which encourages authorities to listen to the voice of the child and “to have thatopinion taken into account in any matter or procedure affecting the child”. Additionally, Article 2 of theUNCRC states that “[p]arties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention toeach child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his orher parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national,ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.” Thus giving priority treatment to Britishnationals runs counter to Article 2, which clearly denotes that all children should be treated as equal.The LSCB’s Trafficking Toolkit and Practice Guidance mentioned above, highlights to lawenforcement the child protection procedures used by local authorities and underscores the fact thatchild trafficking is a child protection issue. The ATMG recommends the implementation of this toolkitand guidance, and that it is promoted and necessitated at all levels in order to improve theidentification of victims and facilitate the prosecution of traffickers.Internal child traffickingWhen a child is trafficked within a country, this is defined as internal trafficking. In the UK both foreignand British national children are victims of internal trafficking. According to the Child Exploitation andOnline Protection Centre (CEOP), the profile of UK children being trafficked is recognised as a muchbroader problem of child sexual exploitation that has only recently been labelled “internal348See European Convention, supra note 15, Article 5.5.349Children’s Society Into the unknown: Children’s journeys through the asylum process (2012).350Ibid.351Ramesh, R., ‘Social care services for children face cuts of 40%, warns charity’ The Guardian. 15 November 2011. Available at:www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/15/social-care-children-40-percent-cut.106