In the Dock

with the investigating officer, she assisted the police in confirming where she had been held and gaveevidence in the trial.Victim 2, first thought to be a member of the trafficking network and initially age assessed as 24 as perthe age on the false travel document, was detained in an adult prison. Questions emerged overwhether the local authority had correctly conducted the age-assessment interview, as it was carriedout by an unsuitable interpreter. The assessment was challenged by the investigating officer, alongwith a specialist NGO, resulting in a revision of her age to 14.Deficiencies of the NRM came to light in this case. The investigating officer admitted he had notreferred Victim 1 until a year after she came to his attention, as initially she would not disclose thetruth about her experience, and continued to recite the “legend” she had been coached to say. Theofficer believed this would result in an unsuccessful NRM referral so the officer waited for firmerevidence.Barriers to investigationChildren’s claims are not always taken seriously, and on occasion children were informed that noevidence was available to take their allegations forward. This research also raised concerns that manypolice staff are insufficiently trained in understanding the difficulties children have in disclosing theirexperiences, such as: the tendency to relay their experiences inconsistently and the specific way thatchildren present information in relation to their experiences, which is acknowledged in key policyaround children. 363 Compounding such issues are concerns in respect of using interpreters who arenot specifically trained in interpreting for children, and the potential adverse impact of this on theevidence gathered during an interview. Practitioners should be aware of the cultural implications forchildren talking to adults (i.e. age, gender, caste, etc.). Also, family members, or those claiming to be,should not be used to interpret, as they may be involved in the trafficking process. 364Moreover, some police do not understand why children do not make their allegations at an earlieropportunity. The ATMG’s research has shown that at the time of identification, some children do notwant to participate in criminal proceedings but may change their minds at later stage, once they feelsafe and settled. This is recognised by Article 9(2) of the Directive, which states that the UK shouldenable “the prosecution of an offence … for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached theage of majority”. This is particularly important, as children will take varying amounts of time to discloseor to be sufficiently prepared, emotionally and physically, to take part in criminal proceedings. Allowingsufficient time for children to feel able to disclose, may make police investigations more difficult aspast allegations are particularly difficult to investigate, as they may rely mainly on the testimony of thetrafficked child. However, historic cases of trafficking must nevertheless be thoroughly investigatedwhen allegations are made. This may also lead to the identification of other trafficked children who arestill being exploited. As stated in OOO, the police are obliged to investigate all cases of trafficking, nomatter when the offence took place. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitation on the crime oftrafficking, meaning that there is no maximum time after the event that legal proceedings, based onthat event, may be initiated.Multi-agency partnerships and child specialismStakeholders interviewed widely shared the opinion that multi-agency working is a prerequisite at bothintelligence and operational levels. MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs) need to be fully utilisedto make decisions about how to safeguard children. This is vital in securing the protection of trafficked363UKBA, Guidance for the Competent Authorities. Available at:www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/specialcases/guidance/competentguidance?view=Binary[last accessed 1 June 2013].364Ibid., p.6.110