In the Dock

(b) D requires another person to perform forced or compulsory labour and the circumstances are suchthat D knows or ought to know that the person is being required to perform such labour.”Article 4 contains a collection of different concepts with a clear graduation of severity: generallyslavery is viewed as a particularly serious offence of human exploitation, followed by servitude andthen forced/compulsory labour. The concepts should be viewed as fluid in which an exploitativesituation may traverse from forced labour into servitude and vice versa.Each of these sentences, in theory, is also punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years’imprisonment. The CJA anchors Article 4 of the ECHR into domestic law, so that individuals can bringclaims against other natural or legal persons under the Human Rights Act 1998. These provisions areto be interpreted in light of developing European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence (e.g.C.N v UK 105 and C.N. and V. v France 106 ).More importantly, the offence does not require movement to be evidenced before consideringexploitative purpose, thus focusing attention on the treatment of the trafficked person rather than howthey were brought into the UK. The CPS advise that if there is sufficient evidence to bring criminalproceedings under s.4 of the AI(TC)A, it should be charged in preference to s.71. 107Despite the offence s.71 offering an effective solution to the deficiencies in the trafficking legislation,our research indicates low levels of awareness, of the existence of the offences, or where thepractitioner had prior knowledge of s.71, they had not considered the potential benefits of applying itto their cases. Furthermore, participants stated that these offences were not appropriate to traffickingfor sexual exploitation cases; however, one experienced police force was attempting to use s.71 in asexual exploitation case where there was no evidence of movement.SlaveryThe concepts of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour are also contained in theConvention and Directive as one of the purposes of exploitation, as well as reproduced in s.71.However, little is known about the slavery definition as no cases under this offence have been broughtin either the ECtHR or domestic courts. This may be due in part to the contended theoretical debateon whether slavery can exist in contemporary law and context.The definition of slavery as it stands in Article 4 of ECHR derives from the 1926 Slavery Convention,which reads “slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powersattaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” In Siliadin v France. the ECtHR stated that slaveryis the exercise of “genuine right of legal ownership” which conflicts with the internationally agreeddefinition of slavery. Thus the ECtHR, by the use of the word “genuine”, restricts its interpretation tode jure (legalised slavery), meaning that as slavery is outlawed in legislation it no longer exists.A progressive interpretation of the 1926 Slavery definition can be found in Australian jurisprudence,namely R v Tang, 108 involving debt bondage to the sum of $45,000 ($20,000 pertained to the105C.N. v UK App no 4239/08 (ECHR, November 2012).106C.N. and V. v France App no 67724/09 (ECHR, 11 October 2012).107CPS, Legal Guidance: Slavery, Servitude and Forced or Compulsory Labour [online]. Available at:www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/slavery_servitude_and_forced_or_compulsory_labour/ [last accessed December 2012].108R v Tang (2008) 237 CLR 1. The case involved five Thai women, previously prostitutes, who travelled to Australia in full knowledgethat they would work in a brothel. The women spoke no English, had no concept of their living conditions and did not know anyone inAustralia, possessed little or no money, had their travel documents and return tickets confiscated, and were told to hide if immigrationofficials arrived at the premises. Each of the women was in indebted to Tang to the tune of $45,000 ($20,000 pertained to thepurchase price of each woman, in addition to airfare and living expenses) which they did not know how this figure was calculated. Thewomen were expected to work for six days of the week at $50 per client which would be retained by Tang to repay their debt. Theseventh day was a ‘free’ day in which they could choose to work and keep their wages. When the women came to the attention of the33