compensation for victims through <strong>the</strong> establishment of a fund for victim compensation. Article 17 of<strong>the</strong> Directive says that: States “shall ensure access to existing schemes of compensation to victims ofviolent crimes of intent”. Article 12 provides that <strong>the</strong> trafficked person shall have access, without delay,to free-of-charge legal counselling, including for <strong>the</strong> purpose of claiming compensation. <strong>In</strong> creatingsuch provisions, <strong>the</strong> Convention and Directive acknowledge <strong>the</strong> potential restorative, punitive andpreventative effect of compensation. 293Compensation orders remain a contested issue with one solitary compensation order made in <strong>the</strong>course of a trafficking trial: in R v Rebecca Balira, <strong>the</strong> court awarded <strong>the</strong> victim £3,000. 294 Whilst <strong>the</strong>rehave been significantly large confiscation orders imposed on traffickers, <strong>the</strong>re has only been onecompensation order granted. The judge has power to order <strong>the</strong> defendant to pay compensation, onconviction, for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from that offence or any o<strong>the</strong>r offencewhich is taken into consideration by <strong>the</strong> court in determining sentence, under s.130 of <strong>the</strong> Powers ofCriminal Courts (Sentencing) Act (PCC(S)A) 2000. However, obtaining compensation through thismethod is difficult as orders can only be considered if <strong>the</strong> defendants’ assets are realisable i.e. <strong>the</strong>yhave been seized and confiscated immediately. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, judges are very unlikely to imposecompensation orders if <strong>the</strong>y impose a custodial sentence on <strong>the</strong> trafficker. This is evidenced in <strong>the</strong>minimal sentence imposed on Rebecca Balira.Applications for such orders can be made by <strong>the</strong> police or prosecutor, 295 but have not been requestedas a matter of course. It appears that police ei<strong>the</strong>r lacked awareness of such procedures or, as someparticipants feared, that <strong>the</strong> police did not inform <strong>the</strong> victim of this right to compensation possibly toavoid <strong>the</strong> defence counsel arguing that <strong>the</strong> allegation was made only to obtain compensation, whichwould potentially lead to an unsuccessful prosecution. For prosecutors, compensation orders appearto be a secondary consideration with <strong>the</strong> primary focus being on securing a conviction. As mosttraffickers are likely to receive some form of custodial sentence, this may explain why compensationorders are not actively pursued. However, as of 3 December 2012, s.63 of <strong>the</strong> Legal Aid, Sentencingand Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 inserts section 130 (2A) into <strong>the</strong> PCC(S)A providing: "A courtmust consider making a compensation order in any case where this section empowers it to do so".This new requirement is in addition to s.130 (3) to "give reasons ... if it does not make a compensationorder". Therefore increased attention may be given to compensation for trafficked persons due to thisdevelopment.The UK operates <strong>the</strong> victim compensation fund through <strong>the</strong> Criminal <strong>In</strong>juries Compensation Authority(CICA). Though this method has seen trafficked persons compensated, this avenue has its owndifficulties as although <strong>the</strong> trafficked person may have “access” in literal terms to <strong>the</strong> fund, in practice<strong>the</strong>y have no “meaningful” access to this compensation scheme. Applying to <strong>the</strong> scheme isparticularly difficult for a person whose first language is not English. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> Governmentdoes not currently offer legal counselling on CICA applications, despite Article 17 obliging Members todo so.CICA is designed to compensate victims of violent crimes. As trafficking is not included as astandalone CICA tariff, many trafficked persons are excluded from applying, as many will not havebeen exposed to physical and quantifiable violence – especially persons trafficked for labour.Successful applications have materialised primarily though <strong>the</strong> assistance of <strong>the</strong> pro bono initiativeprovided by <strong>the</strong> private law firm, Hogan Lovells. The CICA scheme is currently under review, withproposals to remove <strong>the</strong> first seven bands of physical injury, and <strong>the</strong> requirement to tie a traffickedperson’s eligibility under <strong>the</strong> scheme to a positive conclusive grounds NRM decision, despite <strong>the</strong>difficulties with this identification system.293See Skrivankova, K. ‘The Right to Compensation for Trafficked Persons: An Overview’, in <strong>the</strong> Trafficking Handbook, supra note 44.294Balira, supra note 114.295This includes drawing <strong>the</strong> court's attention to its powers to award compensation and inviting <strong>the</strong>m to make such an order whereappropriate.90
Ano<strong>the</strong>r option for trafficked victims is to initiate a civil claim for compensation. This was utilised in AT& Ors v Dulghieru & Anor in 2009 296 in which <strong>the</strong> High Court ordered £611,000 to be paid to fourMoldovan victims five years after <strong>the</strong> traffickers were convicted. It was stated by some participantsthat <strong>the</strong> civil route, and potentially cross-jurisdiction civil cases, should be developed. However,without pro bono legal assistance, such claims require <strong>the</strong> claimant to fund <strong>the</strong>ir own case, which maynot be a viable option. Therefore <strong>the</strong> current compensation avenues are ineffective in securingcompensation for trafficked persons and do not fulfil <strong>the</strong> spirit of <strong>the</strong> requirement for compensation in<strong>the</strong> Convention or Directive.ConclusionSeveral CJS actors play a role in proceedings against traffickers. Successful prosecutions depend onboth <strong>the</strong> level of knowledge of <strong>the</strong> CPS lawyers, prosecuting advocates and judges, and <strong>the</strong> supportafforded to trafficked persons participating in <strong>the</strong> proceedings. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> outcome of <strong>the</strong> trialalso largely depends on how <strong>the</strong> complex crime of trafficking is explained to <strong>the</strong> jury. Specialmeasures, both in court, as well as broader protection for victim-witnesses, should be considered in alltrafficking trials. Finally, until a combination of adequate victim-witness support and protection, andcompetent presentation by prosecuting advocates is achieved, many traffickers will continue to enjoyimpunity. Once traffickers are convicted <strong>the</strong>y should receive sentences that are not simply viewed asan occupational hazard. Therefore present sentencing inconsistencies, particularly between sexualand non-sexual exploitation, warrant a review of sentencing if trafficking in <strong>the</strong> UK remains unabated.Recommendations• Ensure that all CPS lawyers, prosecuting advocates, judges and VLUs receive trainingon trafficking laws and <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> crime.• Develop specialist CPS lawyers and judges, similar to <strong>the</strong> rape-ticketed model.• Issue detailed sentencing guidance for all trafficking and forced labour relatedoffences.• Ensure that trafficked persons are supported throughout and after criminalproceedings. Readily provide, where necessary, efficient special measures includingwitness protection.296AT & Ors v Dulghieru & Anor [2009] EWHC 225 (QB).91
- Page 1 and 2:
In the DockExamining the UK’s Cri
- Page 3 and 4:
AcknowledgementsThis report was mad
- Page 5 and 6:
PrefaceIn May 2009, a group of nine
- Page 7 and 8:
Misconceptions around exploitation
- Page 9 and 10:
Acronyms and abbreviations frequent
- Page 11 and 12:
Executive SummaryIn the Dock is The
- Page 13 and 14:
Furthermore, the current legislatio
- Page 15 and 16:
The ATMG was made aware of some cas
- Page 17 and 18:
• Introduce mandatory child-speci
- Page 19 and 20:
• The UK’s ability to meet the
- Page 21 and 22:
Traffickers’ primary motivation i
- Page 23 and 24:
• Money launderers - turn profits
- Page 25 and 26:
out to perpetuate the exploitative
- Page 27 and 28:
[their] own enslavement” is as fu
- Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 2: UK Anti-Trafficking Legi
- Page 31 and 32:
nationals who commit trafficking of
- Page 33 and 34:
Like the SOA, the “act” element
- Page 35 and 36:
(b) D requires another person to pe
- Page 37 and 38:
Forced or compulsory labourThe defi
- Page 39 and 40:
ConclusionAs a consequence of the s
- Page 41 and 42: concerningly, the number of convict
- Page 43 and 44: women who were recruited in Poland
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 4: Identifying trafficking
- Page 47 and 48: Misconceptions around exploitationT
- Page 49 and 50: espond inadequately to a trafficked
- Page 51 and 52: multi-agency teams was described by
- Page 53 and 54: Josie Connors. 179 In summary, inte
- Page 55 and 56: defending a trafficked person for f
- Page 57 and 58: “[B]ecause the NRM decision is on
- Page 59 and 60: PTSD. 196 A Consultant Psychiatrist
- Page 61 and 62: etween the client and the police, i
- Page 63 and 64: Regular communication needs to be s
- Page 65 and 66: Priority planningA particular issue
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter 6: Multi-agency and interna
- Page 69 and 70: canvassing for tarmacking opportuni
- Page 71 and 72: Despite this, it would appear that
- Page 73 and 74: Good practice - Operation Golf 229O
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter 7: Criminal proceedingsThe
- Page 77 and 78: Law enforcement working on the case
- Page 79 and 80: trafficking require particular unde
- Page 81 and 82: JuryPractitioners suggested that th
- Page 83 and 84: years”. 258 Ambiguity within the
- Page 85 and 86: officer stated that not all judges
- Page 87 and 88: jurors to be assisted with expert e
- Page 89 and 90: Good feedback was received from sem
- Page 91: The Convention does recognise that
- Page 95 and 96: There are two models with respect t
- Page 97 and 98: 1. Is there clear evidence that the
- Page 99 and 100: decision can be taken into account
- Page 101 and 102: also entails being “alert to the
- Page 103 and 104: In some cases concerns were even ra
- Page 105 and 106: Chapter 9: Prosecuting child traffi
- Page 107 and 108: However, many children are not refe
- Page 109 and 110: trafficking”. 352 It states: “W
- Page 111 and 112: Previous research has found that th
- Page 113 and 114: children as well as assisting in pr
- Page 115 and 116: Child trafficking trainingThere is
- Page 117 and 118: were too traumatic to involve them
- Page 119 and 120: committed by a child whilst in a co
- Page 121 and 122: • Introduce mandatory child-speci
- Page 123 and 124: IdentificationThe PSNI is the main
- Page 125 and 126: participants suggest that this is b
- Page 127 and 128: The PPS stated that the reasons for
- Page 129 and 130: this research was aware of potentia
- Page 131 and 132: convictions of traffickers prosecut
- Page 133 and 134: Possibly in response to certain hur
- Page 135 and 136: espectively. In addition to custodi
- Page 137 and 138: Conclusion and RecommendationsThe A
- Page 139 and 140: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS• Ensure that
- Page 141 and 142: Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Gu
- Page 143 and 144:
Herman. J. Trauma and Recovery: The
- Page 145 and 146:
Annex I: Trafficking and other form
- Page 147 and 148:
(a) on summary conviction, to impri
- Page 149 and 150:
(b) which country is the country of
- Page 151 and 152:
2009 Istvan Kalocsai (Snr)MetS.57 o
- Page 153 and 154:
2009 causing actual bodily harm, su
- Page 155 and 156:
Skirmantas Kvedaras Feed, 2010 Rape
- Page 157 and 158:
2012 Ahdel Ali (24)Mubarek Ali (29)
- Page 159 and 160:
Annex III: The CPS’s Seven Stages
- Page 161 and 162:
159