In the Dock

Working with private partners - R v Jamali, Hagnegat, Bordbar and GholampourIntelligence from the public and business can be crucial where knowledge of child trafficking is lackingamong frontline officials. NGO initiatives, such as The Code, 371 and specialist trafficking police unitshave connected with private entities to raise awareness of trafficking, with a view to opening alterativechannels of intelligence gathering. One example of this can be found in R v Jamali, Hagnegat,Bordbar, and Gholampour, 372 which involved four Iranian nationals who attempted to sell the virginityof girls at the Jumeirah Carlton Hotel, in Knightsbridge, London. A handwritten letter was left at thehotel detailing the availability of 12 girls aged between 14 and 20 years. Hotel staff forwarded theletter to the MPS and a covert operation was initiated involving a Farsi-speaking police officer actingas a potential client. Communication was made with the group and photographs of the girls wereexchanged with the police before a meeting was arranged at a different hotel. When Jamali andHagnegat arrived with six girls they were arrested. Owing to the vigilance of staff acting on priorawareness of child trafficking, they were able to assist in intelligence gathering for this investigation.This case also highlights the need to use police from the same cultural background to effectivelyinfiltrate trafficking networks.At Harrow Crown Court all four pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffick six women aged between 17and 22 years for sexual exploitation. Jamali and Hagnegat also admitted conspiracy to inciteprostitution for gain. The instigator, Jamali, was sentenced to two years and nine months. Hagnegat totwo years and six months, Bordbar to two years and three month, and Gholampour to two years andnine months. A charge of conspiracy to arrange child prostitution lies on the files of all four.The low sentences reflect the fact that the exploitation had not yet taken place. Although thephotograph of a 14 year old to “entice” clients was viewed as an aggravating factor, the sentencingdoes not appear to have taken into account that one of the victims was only 17 years old. Article 24.bof the Convention states that child trafficking is considered an aggravating circumstance. This is alsoreflected in the sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. 373This demonstrates that there are still inconsistencies on the UK’s adherence to recognising theinternationally agreed definition of a child.In November 2012, the Government stated that it was working in partnership with several agencies to“improve national and local understanding of the different local multi-agency models in place tosupport information sharing around safeguarding response for vulnerable people”, 374 which includedtrafficked children. However, the tried and tested Working Together to Safeguard Children 375document coming into effect from 15 April 2013, has been reduced from 400 pages to 84, andremoves chapters on training and working with children in specific circumstances, such as sexualexploitation and trafficking. The ATMG believes that this will have a negative impact on multi-agencyworking. The proposed revision removes all reference to the investigation of organised or institutionalabuse. The Government should review this decision and acknowledge the success of Paladin andNewbridge which demonstrate the urgent need for multi-agency working on child trafficking. Delays tothis approach will continue to expose children to the risk of harm, re-trafficking and going missing fromcare, and, in turn, the likelihood of a successful prosecution.371The Code is an industry-driven, multi-stakeholder initiative with the mission to provide awareness, tools and support to the tourismindustry in order to combat the sexual exploitation of children in contexts related to travel and tourism. See: www.thecode.org.372R v Jamali and others at Harrow Crown Court, 10 September 2010.373GRETA, supra note 87.374Hansard, HC Deb, 13 November 2012, c129W.375Sentencing Guidelines Council, supra note 258.112