Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • Sepet and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 l 2001

    Next I should emphasise that it is plain (indeed uncontentious) that there are circumstances in which a conscientious objector may rightly claim that punishment for draft evasion would amount to persecution: where the military service to which he is called involves acts, with which he may be associated, which are contrary to basic rules of human conduct; where the conditions of military service are themselves so harsh as to amount to persecution on the facts; where the punishment in question is disproportionately harsh or severe.

  • William Connors and Others v R
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 n 2013

    Sentences in this class of case must make clear, not merely that the statutory minimum wage should not be undermined, but much more important, that every vulnerable victim of exploitation will be protected by the criminal law, and they must also emphasise that there is no victim, so vulnerable to exploitation, that he or she somehow becomes invisible or unknown to or somehow beyond the protection of the law.

  • R v Sk
    • Court of Appeal
    • 08 t 2011

    Where "forced or compulsory labour" is concerned, the menace of a penalty can be exerted in various ways. Constraint can be mental or physical. Where it is alleged that one person has been compulsorily employed by another, the level of pay he or she has received, if any, may have evidential importance. It may point to coercion; it may bear on an employee's ability to escape from his or her employer's control. On its own, however, a derisory level of wages is not tantamount to coercion.

  • Sepet v SSHD
    • House of Lords
    • 20 n 2003

    There is compelling support for the view that refugee status should be accorded to one who has refused to undertake compulsory military service on the grounds that such service would or might require him to commit atrocities or gross human rights abuses or participate in a conflict condemned by the international community, or where refusal to serve would earn grossly excessive or disproportionate punishment: see, for example, Zolfagharkhani v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1993] FC 540; Ciric v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1994] 2 FC 65; Canas-Segovia v Immigration and Naturalization Service (1990) 902 F 2d 717; UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, paras 169, 171.

    The decision-maker will begin by considering the reason in the mind of the persecutor for inflicting the persecutory treatment. That reason would, in this case, be the applicants' refusal to serve in the army. On the facts here, that would not be a tenable view, since it is clear that anyone refusing to serve would be treated in the same way, whatever his personal grounds for refusing.

  • Jugnauth v Ringadoo
    • Privy Council
    • 04 2008

    It seems to be clear too that any time spent in custody prior to sentencing should be taken fully into account, not simply by means of a form of words but by means of an arithmetical deduction when assessing the length of the sentence that is to be served from the date of sentencing.

  • R (Reilly and Another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 n 2013

    Fairness therefore requires that a claimant should have access to such information about the scheme as he or she may need in order to make informed and meaningful representations to the decision-maker before a decision is made. Such claimants are likely to vary considerably in their levels of education and ability to express themselves in an interview at a Jobcentre at a time when they may be under considerable stress.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
  • Modern slavery directors personally liable for employee exploitation
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Allen & Overy LLP
    • 2019/06/27
    The High Court has held a company’s officers personally, jointly and severally liable to its employees as victims of modern slavery. The officers had deliberately and systematically utilised coerci...
    ...... Rights Act 1998 for breach of the prohibition on slavery and forced labour in Article 4 of the ......
  • Hot Topics in Supply Chain Compliance
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Ropes & Gray LLP
    • 2017/01/24
    The last few years have seen a proliferation of new supply chain-focused regulations and other compliance obligations, a trend which isn’t likely to abate any time soon. In this Alert, we provide a...
    ...... The UK Modern Slavery Act (MSA). Starting this year, the MSA will ... The UK Labour Standards Assurance System (LSAS). LSAS was ... things addresses the use of child and forced labor; (2) assessing the extent to which labor ... the consumptive demand exception, the prohibition did not apply to the extent that US demand ......
See all results