In the Dock

term. Therefore a more nuanced approach needs to be adopted when evaluating the effectiveness ofdisruption strategies.Interviewed law enforcement officers stated that in general those occupying the end of the traffickingchain, such as the enforcers, with the occasional middlemen, are being prosecuted. In effect thisdisrupts the criminal activities. However, the roots of the problem i.e. the recruiters and personsfinancing trafficking activities who are far removed from enforcing the exploitation, may continue theiractivities linking into other trafficking groups or recruiting others. Thus a focus on prosecutingtraffickers operating solely in the UK may only provide a sticking plaster to the problem rather than adurable solution. It was stated that to fully impede traffickers’ activities each network must be fullydismantled. Though disruption strategies have their place, prosecuting trafficking effectively requiresproactivity and cross border working (see Chapter 6).National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and investigation interplayThe NRM framework has a specific purpose of identifying trafficked persons and ensuring theyreceive appropriate protection and support. However, this research found that investigations andprosecutions can be jeopardised when a trafficked person, who wishes to participate in theinvestigation, receives a negative NRM reasonable grounds decision. This is of concern as the policeand support providers state that these decisions can be poorly made especially where UKBA is theCompetent Authority adjudicating on such matters.UKBA officials regularly base their NRM decisions on a credibility assessment based on coherent,consistent and undelayed disclosure from the trafficked person. It is well documented that traffickedpersons may only disclose their experience over a period of time and their account may beinconsistent because of trauma suffered. The UKBA Competent Authority Guidance also makesconcessions for “mitigating factors” such as “incoherent, inconsistent or delays providing details ofmaterial claimed facts” i.e. genuine trafficked persons’ accounts may present in this way. 189 However,these “mitigating factors” appear to be rarely considered in UKBA NRM decision-making. This ispossibly due to an emphasis on credibility in the Guidance that is somewhat at odds with the“mitigating factors” as they themselves can be viewed as indicators of non-credibility. It is important tonote that such a criterion on credibility is not envisaged by the Convention.Poor UKBA NRM decision-making has affected trafficked persons’ permission to stay in the UK wherethey are participating in an investigation. It appears that UKBA’s priorities, in relation to decreasing netmigration, is at odds with the CJS’s endeavours to prosecute trafficking. One law enforcement officerwho experienced such inconsistency stated about the primary role of the UKBA in trafficking decisionmaking:“… the prime example is of two females, both from a West African country who were trafficked at thesame time, are [exploited] in the same brothel, have the same account, one was recognised and onewas not ... It’s a lottery.”In this case, referred to in the quote involving different UKBA NRM decisions, both trafficked childrenwere participating in a high profile and ultimately successful investigation against their trafficker;however, initially UKBA attempted to remove them from the UK. The decision to remove waschallenged by the officer who argued that they would be at substantial risk should they be returned toNigeria due to their participation in the investigation.A negative NRM decision may also impede the commencement of an investigation, as one ex-policeofficer described:189UKBA, Guidance for the Competent Authorities [online]. Available at:www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/specialcases/guidance/competentguidance?view=Binary[last accessed March 2013].54