In the Dock

purchase price of each trafficked woman, in addition to airfare and living expenses). The courtaffirmed that “powers attaching to the right of ownership” covers a de facto condition of slavery. 109Adding weight to the above arguments in the UK context derive from the R v SK 110 judgment (seeChapter 7) where their Lordships noted: “To dismiss “slavery” as being merely reminiscent of an eraremote from contemporary life in the United Kingdom is wrong. In the modern world exploitation canand does take place.” 111 The recently published Bellagio–Harvard Guidelines on the Legal Parametersof Slavery sought to develop legal clarity on the interpretation of slavery, contextualising slavery in themodern day and acting as a reference point for CJS practitioners. 112ServitudeThe definition of servitude was affirmed in Siliadin v France, stating that this "in addition to theobligation to perform certain services for others ... the obligation for the 'serf' to live on anotherperson's property and the impossibility of altering his condition”. 113 In Siliadin servitude was viewed asan aggravated form of forced and compulsory labour. Servitude has been prosecuted successfully inthe UK: see R v Rebecca Balira in 2011, 114 R v Josie and James Connors 115 in 2012 and recently in Rv Dawid Siwak 2013. 116R v Rebecca BaliraThe defendant, a leading HIV scientist, brought her victim to the UK from Tanzania. On arrival in theUK, the defendant removed and withheld the victim’s passport and prohibited contact with her familyin Tanzania. The victim was made to work 18 hours a day for seven days per week without pay, inwhich she looked after the defendant’s three children and performed household duties. In these sevenmonths of exploitation, the defendant assaulted the victim with her fists, shoes and a wooden spoon.In one instance the victim’s bra was cut off with a pair of scissors after the defendant accused her oftaking money from a moneybox. The victim was only able to escape when she confided in her friendabout her mistreatment. Her friend sought help from Kalayaan, which represents migrant domesticworkers, and she was assisted in reporting the abuse to the police.Most recently, in C.N. and V. v France 117 the ECtHR further clarified the law by stating that theessential feature distinguishing servitude from forced or compulsory labour was the victims’ feelingthat their condition could not be altered and that there was no potential for change, in particular C.N.’sbelief that she could not escape from Mr and Mrs M’s guardianship without finding herself in an illegalsituation, and her understanding that, without vocational training, she would be unable to find externalemployment. 118 The court also distinguished housework contributions for mutual family assistance orcohabitation from an Article 4 violation by examining proportionality, in particular the nature andvolume of work demanded. It is important to note that this offence does not require physical abuse asthe focus is on freedom and choice rather than ill treatment, though this may also be present. 119authorities, two of the women had paid their debt off and were now working for Tang on their own terms and in possession of theirtravel document and return tickets. However, it was concluded that in the totality of the circumstances, ‘the complainants wereeffectively restricted to the premises’.109Ibid., para. 25 (Gleeson CJ).110R v SK [2011] EWCA Crim 1691.111Ibid., para. 41.112Research Network on the Legal Parameters of Slavery, Bellagio-Harvard Guidelines on the Legal Parameters of Slavery (3 March2012) Available at: www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Research/researchfilestore/Filetoupload,286201,en.pdf [last accessed 14April 2013].113Siliadin, supra note 104, para. 123.114R v Balira at Southwark Crown Court, August 2011.115Connors, supra note 50.116R v Siwak at Portsmouth Crown Court, February 2013.117C.N. and V. v France, supra note 106.118Ibid., para. 90-94.119Ibid., para. 75.34