In the Dock

“[B]ecause the NRM decision is only on the balance of probabilities and if they [the police] are lookingto prosecute [which has] to be on a higher level of proof, i.e. the beyond reasonable doubt, then they[the police] probably won’t continue an investigation because it’s a different level of standard of proofand if it’s failed at a lower standard of proof [balance of probabilities] then it’s going to be incrediblydifficult to get it to the higher level of proof.”In one example presented to the ATMG, a potential trafficked person reported rape and trafficking tothe police but subsequently received a negative NRM decision from UKBA. The case was submittedfor judicial review and the potential trafficked person was informed that the police would not proceedwith an investigation unless the judicial review was successful. The police also stated that UKBA hadalready undertaken an investigation and found them not to be trafficked and therefore they would notduplicate the investigation carried out by UKBA. This seems to be contradicted by the position that ifthe judicial review is successful the police will investigate. The ATMG has learnt that this is not anisolated case of a trafficking investigation being dependent on a conclusive grounds decision.Furthermore, UKBA does not share with the police intelligence from NRM referral forms or asylumapplications where trafficking is raised. This, in part, is due to victim confidentiality which is animportant element of the Convention and Directive. However, it has been suggested that this may beovercome by inserting a clause in the NRM form which trafficked persons can tick to indicate that theirinformation can be shared with the police. This must be strictly obtained with the fully informedconsent of the trafficked person. Furthermore, they must understand how their information will beused and the possible implications of sharing such information.In other instances the decision made in NRM referral forms completed by the police was notcommunicated back to officers, which affected case planning. In one recent case, a legal practitioner,representing a trafficked woman brought to the UK for sexual exploitation, pointed out to the policethat the information UKBA holds on persons travelling to and from the UK can include biometric dataon potential traffickers, including their client’s trafficker. Initially the police responded negatively to thisbecause of the general difficulties in obtaining intelligence from UKBA.InterpretersParticipants from all stakeholder groups reported difficulties in using interpreters. 190 Incorrectinterpretation can erode the investigation, resulting in lost or misunderstood information. Problemscommonly cited by participants include: interpreters allocated to cases who spoke similar but not thesame dialect resulting in incorrect information being received; lack of interpreters who spoke raredialects; paraphrasing where verbatim interpretation is required; interpreters being uncomfortable orunable to interpret sensitive subject matters, particularly sexual content or cases involving Juju;discrimination or tensions in situations when interpreter and victim are from different ethnic, cultural,class or religious backgrounds (also see Chapter 9 for child-specific issues). Moreover, as policeperception can affect the trafficked person’s behaviour (see below), so can interactions withinterpreters if they are psychologically or emotionally unsuitable.Whilst using volunteer interpreters, family members or other victims to interpret may save costs andtime, this should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, as there is a risk that they may beconnected with the trafficking network. To avoid problems with interpreters it is good practice to usethe same interpreter throughout so as to restore a sense of stability for the trafficked person as well asobtaining feedback from them afterwards to ensure they are happy with the interpreter’s services.On 30 January 2012 the Government restricted interpreter services in England and Wales to a singleagency, Applied Language Solutions. This exercise was said to reduce interpreter and translationcosts by £18m per year while interpreter allocation would be more effective. This has caused190An interpreter interprets speech, while a translator translates writing from one language to another.55