Trafficking Case Avoids Attorney General Appeal Following Sentence

Our client and his wife were charged with controlling prostitution for gain, arranging travel for exploitation and offences involving criminal property. The prosecution alleged that the couple operated a sex work business from several addresses and arranged for women to travel from China to work there for short periods before moving to different locations.

The prosecution case relied heavily on telephone evidence, surveillance and banking records. At first glance the allegations were serious and carried the risk of a lengthy prison sentence. However, careful analysis of the evidence showed that some of the money involved had been legitimately earned through restaurant businesses. Welfare checks carried out by the authorities found that the women accepted they were working as sex workers for the couple, were treated well and were allowed to keep most of their earnings in cash. None of the women wished to provide statements and it remained unclear how they had travelled to the UK. The evidence relating to travel arrangements was limited to collecting a small number of women from a local train station.

Telephone evidence showed bookings being arranged and discussions around pricing and services, although some customers were turned away if they were considered a threat or unsuitable. Representations were made to the prosecution in relation to the trafficking allegation, although these were not accepted. While trafficking offences do not require victims to come from another country or to be forced, there was no evidence of serious violence, threats against families, coercion, intimidation or significant psychological, physical or financial harm.

Our client pleaded guilty on the full facts and the co-defendant later pleaded guilty during the trial. At sentence, the defence successfully argued for lower sentencing categories and the Judge accepted those submissions. Our client was sentenced to 2 years and 1 month imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently.

The prosecution later referred the case to the Attorney General to consider whether the sentence was unduly lenient, however no appeal was ultimately pursued.

Rachel Hobba was the solicitor with the conduct of this case. Libby Anderson of Crucible Chambers was the barrister instructed on this case.