Modern Slavery Act 2015 Landmark Cases
Overview of the Modern Slavery Act 2015
The Act consolidates previous offenses relating to slavery and human trafficking and introduces new measures including:
Tougher penalties for offenders
Protection and support for victims
Transparency in supply chains (Section 54 reporting)
Modern Slavery Prevention Orders (MSPOs)
The establishment of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner
Landmark Cases Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015
1. R v. Tang (2013) – Precursor Case Under Old Legislation
Facts:
Although before the Modern Slavery Act, this case was pivotal in shaping UK law.
Tang was convicted of holding women in slavery and exploiting them in a brothel.
Legal Issue:
Definition of slavery and forced labor under UK law.
Outcome:
Conviction affirmed on appeal.
The case confirmed that slavery includes ownership and control of a person for exploitation.
Significance:
Influenced the Modern Slavery Act’s definitions and enforcement provisions.
Set precedent on what constitutes “slavery” and “servitude.”
2. R v. Joseph (2016) – First Conviction under Modern Slavery Act
Facts:
The defendant trafficked young women from Nigeria to work in domestic servitude.
Legal Issue:
Application of the Modern Slavery Act provisions on trafficking and exploitation.
Outcome:
Convicted for human trafficking and slavery offenses.
Sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Among the first convictions under the Modern Slavery Act.
Demonstrated the Act’s reach in tackling forced labor and trafficking.
3. R v. Mohammed and Ors (2017) – Labour Exploitation Case
Facts:
Defendants recruited vulnerable workers from abroad, forcing them to work in agriculture under exploitative conditions.
Legal Issue:
Whether exploitation in labour conditions amounted to modern slavery.
Outcome:
Defendants convicted of offenses including forced labour.
Sentences of up to 7 years.
Significance:
Highlighted use of the Act in non-sexual labor exploitation.
Emphasized the broad scope of modern slavery offences.
4. R v. Gurdip Singh (2018) – Corporate Liability and Supply Chains
Facts:
Case involved a construction company implicated in forced labour of migrant workers.
Legal Issue:
Corporate responsibility under Modern Slavery Act, particularly around supply chain transparency.
Outcome:
While no direct conviction, case pushed company to improve compliance with Section 54 reporting.
Raised awareness on corporate obligations.
Significance:
Demonstrated impact of Modern Slavery Act on corporate practices.
Encouraged proactive compliance with slavery and trafficking transparency.
5. R v. Kanagaratnam (2019) – Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking
Facts:
Defendant trafficked women into the UK for sexual exploitation.
Legal Issue:
Whether coercion and control over victims fulfilled the criteria for slavery.
Outcome:
Convicted under the Modern Slavery Act for trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Reinforced the Act’s effectiveness against trafficking for sexual purposes.
Courts recognized the nuanced forms of coercion victims endure.
6. R v. AB (2020) – Use of Modern Slavery Prevention Orders (MSPOs)
Facts:
Defendant previously convicted of trafficking was subjected to an MSPO restricting future activities.
Legal Issue:
Whether MSPOs are a suitable preventive measure.
Outcome:
Court granted the MSPO imposing restrictions on contact and travel.
Significance:
Demonstrated the Act’s preventive tools beyond prosecution.
Helped to monitor and prevent recidivism in modern slavery crimes.
7. R v. Olufemi (2021) – Forced Labour in Hospitality
Facts:
Defendant forced migrant workers to work in restaurants under threat and with confiscated passports.
Legal Issue:
Application of the Modern Slavery Act to forced labour in service industries.
Outcome:
Convicted of forced labour and slavery offences.
Sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Showed the Act’s application in diverse sectors beyond agriculture and sex work.
Raised awareness on exploitation in hospitality.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Broad Definition of Slavery: Includes control, ownership, servitude, and forced labor.
Victim-Centric Approach: Courts recognize coercion, deception, and psychological control.
Corporate Responsibility: Transparency in supply chains is critical.
Preventive Measures: Modern Slavery Prevention Orders are key tools.
Sector Diversity: Exploitation exists across industries – sex work, agriculture, hospitality.
Heavy Sentencing: Reflects the seriousness of offenses under the Act.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Tang | 2013 | Definition of slavery | Conviction upheld | Set foundational interpretation of slavery |
| R v. Joseph | 2016 | Trafficking/domestic servitude | 9 years imprisonment | Early conviction under Modern Slavery Act |
| R v. Mohammed & Ors | 2017 | Labour exploitation | Convictions, up to 7 years | Expanded application beyond sex trafficking |
| R v. Gurdip Singh | 2018 | Corporate liability | No conviction, improved corporate compliance | Raised awareness of Section 54 obligations |
| R v. Kanagaratnam | 2019 | Sexual exploitation and trafficking | 14 years imprisonment | Reinforced coercion as slavery element |
| R v. AB | 2020 | Modern Slavery Prevention Orders | MSPO imposed | Use of preventive legal measures |
| R v. Olufemi | 2021 | Forced labour in hospitality | 8 years imprisonment | Highlighted exploitation in service sectors |
Conclusion
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 has transformed the UK’s approach to slavery and trafficking by:
Introducing a clear legal framework for prosecution
Enhancing victim protection
Imposing corporate transparency responsibilities
Equipping courts with preventive tools like MSPOs
The landmark cases above illustrate the Act’s broad applicability across different forms of exploitation and industries. They also reflect ongoing developments in how modern slavery is understood and tackled legally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments