Sentencing Appeals and the Modern Slavery Act 2015: Evaluating the Status Quo: MC and Ors [2019] EWCA Crim 1026
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018319894397 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Sentencing Appeals and the
Modern Slavery Act 2015:
Evaluating the Status Quo
MC and Ors [2019] EWCA Crim 1026
Keywords
Sentencing, human trafficking, forced labour, seriousness of offence, totality of sentence
On 22 February 2019, the offenders (‘MC’, ‘MB’, ‘JC’ and ‘JP’) were convicted of various offences
relating to their involvement in a ‘large-scale, sophisticated and extensive trafficking of Polish nationals
to and within the United Kingdom for the purposes of exploitation’ (at [24]) and money laundering.
There were seven counts on the indictment, each charging a conspiracy between June 2012 and October
2017 which involved numerous victims. In respect of counts one to six, they had in fact been split into
pairs of counts to reflect the enactment of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (‘MSA 2015’) and its pre-
decessor legislation, during the operation of the criminal scheme.
The operation centred on the ‘B’ family and the head of the operation was AB who was in Poland
awaiting extradition at the time of the hearing. The offenders induced vulnerable individuals to travel to
the UK on the promise of employment and wages, as well as accommodation. Often those approached
were, inter alia, homeless, addicted to alcohol and/or had mental health issues. Victims were taken to
employment agencies and job centres to obtain National Insurance numbers and provided with unskilled
or low skilled jobs. The victims were also forced to open bank accounts, over which the gang then
exercised control. Victims would work long hours and would often be escorted to and from work,
sometimes being driven several hours from accommodation. The victims were paid only a small part
of their actual wages each week and much less than they had been promised, the rest of which would then
be taken by the members of the gang. The accommodation provided was in man y cases ‘squalid’,
sometimes without heating or running water (at [22]). When victims challenged the offenders in relation
to their living conditions or wages, they would be ‘subjected to threatened or (on occasion) actual
violence, including sexual violence, and other forms of intimidation’ (at [25]). It was estimated that
the value of the financial exploitation was in the region of £380,000, although the criminal property
generated by the conspiracy involved some further £2 million.
In sentencing, Her Honour Judge Stacey clearly determined that this was a case of forced labour but
did not amount to serfdom or slavery (at [41]). The judge took into account the period in which the
offending took place and that ‘the conspiracies extended significantly beyond the 66 complainants who
had been identified and who gave evidence at trial’ (at [40]). The judge imposed concurrent sentences on
all counts making it clear that she ‘loaded’ the lead counts so as to reflect the totality of the offending (at
[12]). MC was convicted in six of seven counts and received 11 years’ imprisonment. MB was convicted
on all counts and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. JC was convicted on the three counts on which
she faced trial and received seven years’ imprisonment. JP was similarly convicted and received eight
years’ imprisonment. In addition, the offenders were made subject to a Slavery and Trafficking Pre-
vention Order (‘STPO’).
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(6) 519–522
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319894397
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial