Modern Slavery Act – a synopsis (Guest Blog by Ben Ticehurst)

The following is a guest blog by solicitor Ben Ticehurst of  E.M.M. Solicitors  


The Modern Slavery Act 2015

 

The Modern Slavery Bill received Royal Assent on the 26th March 2015. Following the announcement of Royal Assent, Unicef Director David Bull said:

The passing of the Modern Slavery Bill into law is an historic moment in the fight against modern slavery and human trafficking. Unicef UK is proud that the UK has committed to stamping out these horrific crimes and, in particular, to protecting vulnerable children.

http://blogs.unicef.org.uk/2015/03/26/modern-slavery-bill-becomes-law-unicef-uk-statement/

Why the need for new legislation?

The Global Slavery Index 2014 reported that over 35 million people are trapped in slavery across the world today. Modern slavery takes multiple forms including forced labour and human trafficking, and is found across the economic sphere in domestic servitude, the sex trade, on farms, building sites and in factories. Many are working in terrible conditions for extremely long hours, for little or no pay, and are vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse. 

http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/

The National Crime Agency suggests that the number of victims of trafficking in the UK rose by 22 per cent from 2012 to 2013 and these numbers are continually on the rise globally as well.

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/news-listings/452-nca-human-trafficking-report-reveals-22-rise-in-potential-victims

In the UK, around 60% of children rescued from trafficking have gone missing from social services. Those working as foreign domestic workers on a tied visa (about 15,000 each year), meaning that they are tied to one employer for the duration of their stay, are unable to leave their houses unaccompanied or find alternative jobs to escape abusive employers without becoming criminalised. 

Until now, there were three pieces of legislation on slavery and trafficking that are scattered, impractical and therefore difficult to use. As a result, there were only 8 convictions of human trafficking in the UK in 2011. There have been calls for the law was to be on the side of victims of slavery and trafficking and so the new Modern Slavery Bill, has been hugely welcomed as it is pivotal to ensuring victims of abuse are found, cared for and receive justice for crimes committed against them.

A Home Office spokesperson recently said the bill was 

“an historic opportunity to get legislation on the statute books that will , for the very first time, address slavery and trafficking in the 21st Century”

Summary of the Act

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0098/15098.pdf

The Modern Slavery Act brings together current offences of trafficking and slavery, introduces tougher sentences (up to a maximum of life imprisonment) for traffickers, and creates an independent anti-slavery commissioner, likely to be a former police officer. It contains provisions for seizing traffickers’ assets and allows for confiscation proceedings (section 7) under the Proceeds of Crime act 2002 (POCA 2002). It also allows for the channelling of traffickers money towards victims, by way of compensation payments (section 9).

It is hoped the Act will provide greater protection for victims and improve the prospects for prosecuting perpetrators

The Act includes provision to defend those that have been forced to commit crimes as victims of slavery or exploitation (section 45). This includes a defence for child victims against prosecution for crimes committed directly as a consequence of their trafficking.

The provisions to protect children are continued in that Section 48 creates ‘Child Trafficking Advocates’ who will support and represent any child that has been the victim of human trafficking. The Act also sets out a ‘presumption about age’ (section 51) which means that where is it unclear as to the age of the victim and they could be under 18 years of age then they will be treated as under 18 until it is know otherwise.

The Act will also make a development in relation to corporate responsibility and accountability in an attempt to improve transparency in supply chains (section 54). This will require companies to make a statement detailing the steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place within the company or supply chains, or that no such actions have been taken. This step follows the USA, Brazil and Australia who have already made efforts to address modern slavery in supply chains.

Observations

There have ben some criticisms of the Bill in that it concentrates on enforcement and prosecution of traffickers as opposed to focusing more on victim protection.

Former conservative MP Anthony Steen has said: 

“the prime minister said he wants to drive slavery out of Britain; I am convinced he is committed to doing something about it, but you are not going to catch traffickers unless you have evidence, and you are not going to have any evidence unless you support the victims. The reason why we have so few convictions in Britain is that police scare the living daylights out of victims.”

Barrister Parosha Chandran has commented that the section of the bill that deals with transparency in supply chains does not extend to wholly owned subsidiaries of UK companies abroad. 

She has stated that 

“…the modern slavery bill represents a huge step forward in the development of corporate accountability. Yet we will never really begin to tackle modern slavery unless we ensure that the supply chains of all our companies, whether doing business in the UK or overseas, are not tainted by trafficking, exploitation or abuse.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/24/loophole-modern-slavery-bill-transparency-supply-chain-abuses

Andrew Wallis, chief executive of Unseen, a charity that works with the survivors of trafficking and modern slavery, was more inclined to be positive. 

Whilst no legislation is ever perfect it must now be matched by a concerted and collaborative effort to put the provisions of this law into full effect”.

“Many have contributed to the process of drafting this legislation and we have arrived at an

Act that the UK can and should be proud of. There is and always will be more to be done

but it was crucial that this legislation reached the statute books before this parliament ended

so that we have a good foundation upon which to build.”

http://www.unseenuk.org/uploads/20150326125647668.pdf


Unrepresented Defendants (guest blog by Penelope Gibbs)

This blog is by Penelope Gibbs of TRANSFORM JUSTICE. 

Transform Justice was set up in 2012 by Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate who had worked (successfully) to reduce child and youth imprisonment in the UK. The charity aims to help create a better justice system in the UK.

Please complete the survey at end of article, and forward to other practitioners
The mysterious increase in defendants without lawyers in the criminal courts 
People are slightly mystified why numbers of unrepresented litigants in the criminal courts seem to be rising.  Everyone expects numbers to rise steeply if the government succeeds in bringing in proposed changes to the way legal aid lawyers are paid.  Then there are likely to be legal aid deserts where no solicitor is willing to work for legal aid rates. But numbers have already started to rise according to a survey from the Magistrates’ Association (http://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/01-Survey-on-litigants-in-person-and-unrepresented-defendants-13-January-2015.pdf).  This suggested one in five of those in 1st listed bail, “Narey”, courts were unrepresented, as were 14% of those on bail hearings, 23% of those being sentenced and 22% of those in criminal trials.  If scaled up countrywide, these would represent thousands of defendants.  No-one knows why these defendants are unrepresented since the criteria for legal aid have not changed for several years. Some people may be ineligible for legal aid either because their crime is serious enough, or because they do not meet the, quite low, means test. But Transform Justice is looking for more information about those struggling to defend themselves in the criminal courts. If you are a criminal solicitor or barrister, or someone who works in the courts in another capacity, please fill in this short survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WBJ3VVY

Grayling Day- the Save Legal Aid Demo 07/03/14

The demonstration on 07 March 2014 in support of Legal Aid in Old Palace Yard, Westminster (outside Houses of Parliament) was possibly the largest gathering of protesting Legal Aid Criminal Lawyers and Supporters ever assembled, and became known as “Grayling Day”, after the man responsible for the cuts, MP Chris Grayling.

The demo raised the profile of the fight against Legal aid cuts. Guardian report here

Highlights in this short film on YouTube

The Fight to Save Legal Aid

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling introduced further cuts to Legal Aid which threatened to destroy the ability of firms or individual lawyers to properly represent clients if reliant on legal aid.
The demo was not about Lawyers livelihoods. This was about equal access to justice for all, not just those who can afford to pay privately. No action was taken to stop wealthy defendants getting Legal Aid because their assets are “restrained” so they can’t use them to pay legal fees (as Martin Bentham  pointed out here)
I had the privilege of compering the demo, organised by LCCSA and the Justice Alliance, supported by revolting lawyers, inspirational speakers, MPs, and an effigy of Grayling. Many Legal Aid Lawyers were not working on the first ever full “strike” (day of action.) Concerns about the justice system were the theme. (BBC coverage here)

A full list of speakers with a summary of their contributions HERE.

I had previously blogged about a Legal Aid day of action in the New Year, (January 2014) but this demo was the first ever full-day National day of Action (aka a strike) by Criminal Lawyers.

20140301-091255.jpg

Footnote

Sadly, a year later the fight was ongoing, and we were back again.

We  kept fighting until Grayling had his day. Chris Grayling was demoted after the election, and replaced by Michael Gove,, who was in turn replaced by Liz Truss and two further changes before the lamentable appointment of the current incumbent.

Eight years after Grayling Day demo, there has been no positive outcome, and legal aid cuts together with court closures and general underfunding of the criminal justice system have meant that once again lawyers are taking action- with a day of action scheduled for 26th June 2022.

In Memory of David McIntosh

David McIntosh, criminal defence solicitor and freelance advocate sadly passed away on 3rd February.

I first met David when I started as an Articled Clerk at Edward Fail Bradshaw and Waterson, where David was already a solicitor having completed his articles there a few years earlier. Twenty years later I was Junior Counsel in a case being led by David,  He was a great Advocate, and a wonderful person.

Both of us had completed our criminal training at EFBW under partner Eddie Preston, who writes the following:-

“David McIntosh was born on the 13 October 1962.   In August 1989 he wrote to EFBW to inquire as to Articles to commence in September 1990 and his letter of application refers to a “substantial commitment to legally aided work”.   He maintained that commitment throughout his professional life.  

 

At his interview on the 21 September 1989 he made it clear that he “wanted to be an advocate”.   He was physically tall and imposing,  always an asset for an advocate!

 

We soon found him to be a kind individual, GSOH, with a splendid “bedside manner”.   David was Articled to John Lafferty (now HH Judge Lafferty at Snaresbrook Crown Court).    He did his first 12 months in the criminal law department, with Edward Preston.   Thereafter he did litigation, and conveyancing.   Having completed his Articles in September 1992, David was appointed assistant solicitor, specialising in criminal law, and remained with the firm until he left in December 1995 to take up a position with Moss & Co.

 

Subsequently David joined the firm of Buxton Ryan in Essex.   Mary Buxton had been an employee at EFBW, Gary Ryan also having been an Articled Clerk at EFBW.

 

Prior to commencing his Articles David had substantial experience working as a homeless person adviser for the London Borough of Camden (1986-1988).  He volunteered as a night shelter worker                 at Centre Point for an extended period of time, and was also the NALGO shop steward for the Homeless Persons Unit.   He was a member of the Homelessness Action Group, and thus over a lengthy period of time had a substantial commitment to assisting the homeless in London.   He was also on a number of committees in support of homelessness.

 

After David started in the criminal department at EFBW it was noticed that he had a tremendous capacity to “dig up” unusual facts and features about a case – hardly surprising in view of the fact that he had studied medieval archaeology at University College London as an undergraduate.  He completed the CPE before joining EFBW.

 

He was a great friend to all at EFBW and remained so throughout his professional career.   He remained totally committed to legal aid work, and went on to successfully achieve his aim of being a busy, successful, hardworking advocate, not only in the Magistrates’ Court, but, of course, later in the Crown Court as HRA. He was highly regarded as an advocate by both Tribunals.  He maintained throughout his life his interest in archaeology, and foreign travel and had only recently completed an extensive trip in the Far East.”


In recent years he was working as a consultant and advocate with Evans Bissett solicitors. Pip Evans and Claire Bissett write:-

David died suddenly on his beloved boat, whilst working on his latest Old Bailey trial. He was 52.

David studied archaeology at UCL, and after graduating worked as a housing officer for Camden Council, before embarking on his legal career. David always stayed true to his roots, and despite enjoying his Crown Court Advocacy he never became aloof from clients.

David was a man of fierce intelligence, sharp wit, and enormous compassion with an unconventional outlook on life. Admired, respected and loved by his colleagues, he was one of a kind. The profession has lost one of its best, and we have lost a truly good friend.David, you are sadly missed”

(Full obituary by Pip and Claire can be read on p10 of The Advocate magazine -click this link to download the issue)

David’s funeral was on 4th March. It was an extremely moving service, followed by a wake where many memories and anecdotes were exchanged. He will be greatly missed by his partner Annie, his family, and his many friends.

One of the chosen songs at the service was Into my Arms (Nick Cave) 

Donations in David’s memory may be made to Shelter from the Storm, or CRISIS

Donate at www.sfts.org.uk/donations or at www.crisis.org.uk/pages/donate.html

R.I.P. 

Drug Driving (guest blog by Tim Huestis)

Drug Driving


This blog is by Tim Huestis of Shearman Bowen and Co.

 

As of 2 March 2015 new drug driving laws come into effect.  Drug driving is prohibited by a new s5A Road Traffic Act 1988.

Drivers can be subjected to a roadside ‘drugalyser’ test that can detect the presence of cannabis and cocaine in a driver’s saliva.  Drivers can also be subjected to a field impairment test.  

A failure of either roadside test can lead to an arrest whereby a suspect is taken to a police station to undergo a blood or urine test.  The blood or urine test will test for 8 illegal drugs: cocaine, cannabis, ketamine, LSD, methylamphetamine, heroin, benzoylecgonine, and MDMA. 

It is also now illegal to drive with certain prescription drugs, however the legal limits have been set above normal doses and drivers who take their medication in accordance with the advice of their doctor should fall below the limits. 

Drivers convicted of drug driving face imprisonment (up to 26 weeks currently as a summary only offence, although 51 weeks allowable if the legislation increasing Magistrates sentencing powers comes into effect) together with disqualification, level 5 fine and anywhere between 3-11 points.

 

Certain procedural aspects surrounding the enforcement of drug driving laws remain unclear.  Indeed, Greater Manchester Police have issued a statement confirming that they will not be prosecuting suspected drug drivers until the new laws and procedures have been scrutinised by the Courts.

There will inevitably be legal challenges to the procedures, practice and evidence, and myself and the Shearman Bowen team look forward to putting the legislation under rigorous scrutiny.

Tim Huestis, Solicitor, Shearman Bowen & Co.

2nd March 2015

Thanks Tim!

Notes

1 Official guidance on Govt. Website www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law 

2 Drugs playlist 

3 The legislative amendments to the Road Traffic Acts were enacted by SI 733 (publ. March 2015)

Likely Defences

Not the driver, exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE following alleged  breaches of police powers, testing carried out incorrectly, false positives, post driving consumption (the drug equivalent of “hip flask defenc even”, defective testing devices, prescription drugs or other lawful reason (expert evidence needed)

Not Magna Carta: Grayling’s Legal Summit

2015 marked the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, where we should have celebrated the cherished ideals of Equality before the Law, right to a jury trial, and the principle that  Justice should not be for sale. Instead, the Government, with it’s legally illiterate Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, held (on February 23rd) an invite only “Legal Summit” with tickets priced at £1500 per head.
It has been said , “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” (Anatole France, see here for more on equality before the law)
But only the rich could afford to attend Grayling’s fat-cat jamboree, hypocritically masquerading as a Magna Carta celebration. Some invited to speak chose to boycott the event.
Many with integrity indicated their opposition, and set out why as recoreded in this blog

I attended the alternative “Not the Great Law Summit”  protest, demonstrating outside the official event. A write-up is here in the Justice Gap.

Speakers included  Maxine Peake (Pictured below), Debora Coles from Inquest,  Marcia Rigg, Karl Turner MP, Andy Worthington and  Jon Black (President of LCCSA)


There was an impeachment hearing for “King John” Christopher Grayling. 

There was also a walk from Runnymede to Westminster over the weekend of 21st-23rd February (“Relay for Rights“)

Anyone who would like to learn more about the issues raised in this blog, may like to look at the website of the Justice Alliance www.justiceallianceuk.wordpress.com
You can also catch up on events as they happened on Twitter using hashtags  #RelayforRights and #NotGLS2015

Notes

1 Check out this excellent article in the New Statesman by Anthony Barnett (founding editor of Open Democracy) who spoke at the start of the March at Runnymede, and joined the walk and demo. 

2 This Article in the Islington Tribune features Ruth Hayes of Islington Law Centre, who also spoke at the Runnymeade gathering and joined both walk and demo. My letter in the same paper is here. 

The Impeachment of “King John” Christopher Grayling

0n 21st February 2015 the Justice Alliance met in Runnymede and set out for Westminster as part of a JA event called Relay for Rights.

This finished on 23rd February with the “NOT THE GREAT LEGAL SUMMIT” In Westminster.

This was organised as a direct response to the hypocritical “Great” Legal Summit, which in the name of Magna Carta, was being used to promote the kind of law that in fact has no resemblance to the principles still celebrated from that historic document.

At the alternative event, on the inspiration of Justice Alliance member Rhona Friedman, I was asked to seek impeachment of the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling by asking the assembled crowd to vote on “articles of impeachment” .

The Articles put to the crowd, and their responses, are recorded below:-

 

                                                 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 

 

                                    The People

                                      V

                     “King John Christopher Grayling”

 

Summary: One Resolution consisting of four articles of impeachment. 

The articles will be debated and voted on individually

 

Introduction

 

The original King John  had ruled using the principle of “force and will”, taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, justified on the basis that a king was above the law.

800 years later, Chris Grayling, a man posturing as Lord Chancellor, takes executive and arbitrary decisions, and by seeking to remove the rights to Judicial Review attempts to place himself above the Law. 

Article 1   MISLEADING PARLIAMENT AND THE PEOPLE

 

As Secretary of State, King John Christopher Grayling provided false and misleading evidence to the House of Commons regarding Judicial Review Reform, having either knowingly lied in order to try to get his bill past the Commons or fundamentally misunderstanding his own legislation.

 

The Secretary of State further provided false and misleading evidence to the Commons about probation privatisation projects in that G4S and Serco confirmed they had been granted new government work during a period when Grayling had told MPs that contracts would not be awarded   Remember SERCO are the robber barons who claimed for supervising the dead!  

 

TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS MISLED THE COMMONS AND THE PEOPLE?

 The People voted AYE 

 

 Article 2       OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 

 

The Secretary of State has obstructed and diminished Justice by :

 

–Reducing the number of people who took mental health cases from 42,000 to 523 in one year 

 

-Removing legal aid from family cases so that 2/3 of people face court alone 

 

Pricing people out of Employment Tribunals so that unfair employees know that they can sack their staff unlawfully 

 

Banning books in prisons until Court Action forced  him to stop 

 

Creating a two tier criminal justice

 

 TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE?

The people voted AYE 

 


 

 Article 3       ABUSE OF POWER

 

The Secretary of State misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice, in that

 

1. He forced through a privatisation of  Probation Service with no proper impact-assessment and at great risk
2. He has brought the Ministry of Justice into disrepute by “Flogging to the floggers” (contracting with the selling of legal services to Saudi Arabia, which has despotic judicial and barbaric punishment systems)
3. Whilst holding the title of Justice Secretary, he has practiced,supported and embodied INJUSTICE, and has been defeated repeatedly in the Courts.

 

TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS ABUSED THE POWER VESTED IN HIM?

The people voted AYE

 

ARTICLE FOUR -ABUSE OF OATH OF OFFICE

 

AS Lord Chancellor King John Grayling is charged with upholding the Rule of Law – We the people have by the above articles found him guilty of misleading Parliament , obstructing justice and abuse of power.

 Do you the people therefore think he has properly discharged his constitutional duty in accordance with his oath of office to ensure the provision of services  for the efficient and effective support of the courts?

 TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS ABUSED HIS OATH OF OFFICE-HOW SAY YOU, AYE OR NO?

The People voted AYE

Lastly do we the people on this fake anniversary of the Great Charter find him to be an Upholder OF THE RULE OF LAW?  AYE OR NO ? 

The People voted No

  

KING JOHN GRAYLING WAS DULY IMPEACHED- SO SAID WE ALL!

He was then conveyed, in stocks, amidst a jeering crowd,  to the “Great Legal Summit” , wherapon the Crowd did chant “Failing Grayling -out, out, out!”

But alas, he stayed in, and the will of the people once again was overborne.

800 years after it was sealed, people still remember the Magna Carta.

Grayling, if recalled in history at all, will be remembered about as fondly as his medieval predessor, the hated King John.


 

 

 

An Obituary for my Father-in-Law

My father-in-law, Ahmet Baboullii, passed away on 19 January 2015.
He was just two weeks short of his 90th birthday.
Ahmet was born in Larnaca, Cyprus on 02 February 1925.
The island was then British run with mixed Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Ahmet spoke both languages fluently, becoming tri-lingual when he later learned English.
He was originally known as Ahmed Musafa, later taking the Greek name Baboullii.
Ahmets father farmed land and did carpentry, and Ahmet was the eldest of five children (of whom just one brother survives)
He joined the British army, supposedly at 16, although it is possible that he was younger and lied about his age. He initially joined a transport regiment, and served in Egypt, but later became an army PT instructor based back in Cyprus. He retained high level of fitnesses until late in life.
After leaving the army, Ahmet left for the UK in 1955.

(null)

He settled in London, and spent the rest of his life in North London, predominately in Islington.
He supported Arsenal Football Club, attending matches at Highbury taking first his son, and later his daughter who remembers standing on a soap-box in the crowd to try and gain sufficient height in the packed terraces to see the action.
He worked in engineering, predominately for an Islington-based company called Ormond Engineering Ltd (based behind Sadler’s Wells)
He married Nasif in 1956 in Liverpool Rd Registry Office. They had two children:- Freddie was born in 1960, and Sonya in 1969.

(null)

A man of simple tastes, Ahmet was hard-working, reliable, and a devoted father. He was an excellent cook, and prepared the family meal each day.
Although separated from Nasif in later years and living independently, they remained on friendly terms and he was a regular visitor to see the grandchildren.

Ahmet lived modestly, but wanted for nothing. Everyone remembers him as having a broad smile, and extending a warm welcome (and almost certainly some food and drink) to visitors.

(null)

I first met Ahmet in 2000 when I was dating Sonya, and was always made very welcome when we visited. He was a sprightly 75, always had a twinkle in his eye, was a knowledgable football fan and Arsenal supporter, a great cook, and partial to a beer or whiskey.
We hit it off straight away.
My key memories:-
1 Asking his permission for me to propose to Sonya.
2 His phenomenal barbeque in our back garden at Adam’s naming ceremony.
3 Leading the dancing at our wedding.
4 Taking him to the Emirates for his 80th birthday (v Man Utd)
I will miss him.
He will be greatly missed.
RIP

GUEST BLOG: The Big Picture

“The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time”
– Sir Edward Grey – British Foreign Secretary 1905 to 1916

Part of 14-18 NOW, WW1 Centenary Art Commissions, LIGHTS OUT invited artists to create large-scale, site-specific artworks at locations across the UK.
In a dramatic UK-wide event LIGHTS OUT was an invitation to turn off lights on 4th August, leaving on a single light or candle for this shared moment of reflection.  Find Out More here: www.1418now.org.uk

 The Big Picture provide virtual candles and other digital resources to mark the occasion. They have video loops of candles and lamps to play back on your tv, laptop or mobile .

This is a part of The Big Picture – a pan-European video installation designed to creatively commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the First World War.

You can view all their resources at www.thebigpicture.org.uk/resources