Modern Slavery Bill published

From:
Home Office, Karen Bradley MP and The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Published 10 June 2014
Part of:
Crime and policing and United Kingdom

An historic bill to help stamp out modern slavery was published today by the Home Secretary Theresa May.
Home Office

The Modern Slavery Bill is the first of its kind in Europe, and one of the first in the world, to specifically address slavery and trafficking in the 21st century. It will give law enforcement the tools they need to target today’s slave drivers, ensure perpetrators are severely punished and improve support and protection for victims.

The Bill reflects the Government’s determination to lead the global fight against modern slavery and to disrupt, prosecute and punish the organised criminal gangs which are behind the majority of this evil trade in human beings.

Home Secretary Theresa May said:

Modern slavery is an appalling crime that has no place in today’s society. It is an affront not just to the dignity and humanity of the people crushed by it but to every one of us.

This Bill presents an historic opportunity to get legislation on the statute books specifically targeting the scourge of modern slavery. I want to pay tribute to the campaigners, organisations and Parliamentarians of all parties, who have worked tirelessly to help us arrive at this important milestone.

To stand the best chance of becoming law by the end of this Parliament, the Bill needs to be as clear and tightly focused as possible. But it will be an important start that future governments will be able to build on. It will send the strongest possible signal to criminals that if you are involved in this disgusting trade you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be locked up. And it will say to victims, you are not alone and we are here to help you.

Modern slavery is a complex problem and legislation is only part of the solution. It also requires tireless and coordinated effort across government and law enforcement, work with other countries to tackle the problem at source, and increased awareness within all communities, including the business community. We are taking forward that work in parallel with the passage of the Bill.

The Modern Slavery Bill will strengthen the response of law enforcement and the courts by:

Consolidating and simplifying existing modern slavery offences into one Act. Currently modern slavery and trafficking offences are spread across a number of different Acts. The Bill fixes this, providing much needed clarity and focus and making the law easier to apply.

Increasing the maximum sentence available for the most serious offenders from 14 years to life imprisonment, with those who have a previous conviction for a serious sexual or violent offence facing an automatic life sentence.

Introducing Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders to restrict the activity of individuals where they pose a risk of causing harm.

Creating a new Anti-Slavery Commissioner, a vital post that will drive an improved and more coordinated law enforcement response at all levels, working in the interests of victims.

Ensuring that perpetrators convicted of slavery or trafficking face the toughest asset confiscation regime.

Strengthening law enforcement powers at sea to close loopholes which prevent the police and Border Force being able to act where it is suspected that human trafficking or forced labour is taking place on board vessels at sea.

The Modern Slavery Bill will ensure victims receive the protection and support they deserve by:

Creating a statutory defence for victims of modern slavery so that those who are compelled to commit an offence are not treated as criminals by the criminal justice system. The defence will not apply to a number of serious offences – mostly sexual and violent offences. It is particularly important that victims of modern slavery have the confidence to come forward and give evidence against their enslavers;

Giving the courts new powers to order perpetrators of slavery and trafficking to pay Reparation Orders to their victims. Where the perpetrator has assets available, the court would have to consider making an Order to provide reparation to the victim for the harm that they have suffered and give reasons if it does not;

Extending special measures so that all victims of modern slavery can be supported through the criminal justice process. This covers screening of witnesses, giving evidence by live link, in private or video recorded. Existing legislation on special measures includes some specific provisions for trafficking cases, the Bill will extend these provisions to also cover slavery, servitude and forced labour;

Providing statutory guidance on victim identification and victim services;

Providing an enabling power for child advocates to support child victims of trafficking; and

Creating a statutory duty for public bodies including the police, local authorities and immigration personnel to notify the National Crime Agency about potential victims of modern slavery.

The new legislation is one element of the Government’s comprehensive programme to tackle modern slavery. This includes a business roundtable to be hosted by the Home Office on Wednesday 11 June to look at how the Government can work with businesses to eliminate forced labour and exploitation from their supply chains.

The Government is working at international level with high risk source countries to try and stop people becoming victims in the first place. On Thursday 12 June the Home Secretary is hosting an event as part of the Global Summit taking place in London, ‘Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative’. The event will focus on the burdens on modern slavery victims, looking in particular at the difficulties of supporting victims through the criminal justice process.

Over the summer trials of new specialist child advocates will begin across 23 local authority areas and an awareness campaign will seek to highlight the hidden nature of modern slavery across a number of sectors and let victims know help is available.

Article 8: contradictory Court of Appeal decisions?

This is regarding the Court of Appeal decision on Article 8 Haleemudeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 558 (02 May 2014). This case concerns long residence and private life in the UK and an argument that the UT was wrong to find an error of law in the determination of the FTT and go on to dismiss the appeal. Beatson LJ gives the judgment of the Court and finds that the FTT was in error for failing to consider the new Article 8 rules. He states:

40. I, however, consider that the FTT Judge did err in his approach to Article 8. This is because he did not consider Mr. Haleemudeen’s case for remaining in the United Kingdom on the basis of his private and family life against the Secretary of State’s policy as contained in Appendix FM and Rule 276ADE of the Immigration Rules. These new provisions in the Immigration Rules are a central part of the legislative and policy context in which the interests of immigration control are balanced against the interests and rights of people who have come to this country and wish to settle in it. Overall the Secretary of State’s policy as to when an interference with an Article 8 right will be regarded as disproportionate is more particularised in the new Rules than it had previously been. The new Rules require stronger bonds with the United Kingdom before leave will be given under them. The features of the policy contained in the Rules include the requirements of twenty year residence, that the applicant’s partner be a British citizen in the United Kingdom, settled here, or here with leave as a refugee or humanitarian protection, and that where the basis of the application rests on the applicant’s children that they have been residents for seven years.

41. The FTT’s decision on Mr Haleemudeen’s Article 8 appeal is contained in [34]-[41], which I summarised and set out in part at [21] – [23] above. Those paragraphs do not refer, either expressly or implicitly, to paragraph 276ADE of the rules or to Appendix FM. None of the new more particularised features of the policy are identified or even referred to in general terms. The only reference to the provisions is in the FTT’s summary (at [30]) of Mr. Richardson’s submission that the reference to the new Rules in the refusal letter was of little relevance because at the time of Mr. Haleemudeen’s application those Rules had not been promulgated and thus did not apply to his case. That submission could not succeed in view of the decision of the House of Lords in Odelola’s case, to which I refer at [25] above.

This was a case where the original application had been made on 28 February 2012 before the new rules were introduced however Beatson LJ relies upon Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25 (20 May 2009) and that the material date was the date of decision. It therefore seems to me (from my brief reading of this case on the bus home!) that the decision in Haleemudeen directly contradicts the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Edgehill & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 402 (02 April 2014) where Jackson LJ found:

Part 5. Executive summary and conclusion

41. Major changes to the Immigration Rules came into force on 9 July 2012. The transitional provisions stated that the new rules would not apply to applications for leave to remain before that date.

42. In both the present cases the appellants applied for indefinite leave to remain under ECHR article 8 before 9 July 2012. The Secretary of State rejected the applications and the tribunals upheld the Secretary of State’s decision.

43. In JE’s case the Upper Tribunal relied upon rule 276ADE (iii) of the new rules (requiring 20 years’ continuous residence) as a consideration materially affecting the decision. Therefore that decision must be quashed and the matter remitted to the Upper Tribunal.

44. In HB’s case both the Secretary of State and the tribunal made reference to rule 276ADE (iii) of the new rules, but they did not rely upon it as a consideration materially affecting the decision. HB’s appeal must be dismissed.

It appears that in Haleemudeen Beatson LJ relies upon Odelola whereas in Edgehill Jackson LJ distinguishes the normal rule in Odelola on the basis of the clear transitional provisions in HC194. It appears that Edgehill is correct because in Odelola Lord Hoffmann states that the rules at the date of decision apply in the absence of any statement to the contrary (paragraph 7). HC 194 provides a clear statement to the contrary which does not appear to have been referred to in Haleemudeen.

More muddy waters in Article 8; let’s hope the Supreme Court comes to the rescue.

Ministers announce new moves to stop failed asylum seekers absconding

Thursday, 12 June 2014

The HOme office Ministers announce new moves to stop failed asylum seekers absconding.
Asylum seekers who lose their final appeal will no longer be notified of the ruling at the same time as the Home Office, eliminating a window of opportunity which allows some to disappear
Asylum seekers who lose their final appeal will no longer be notified of the ruling at the same time as the Home Office
Asylum seekers who lose their final appeal will no longer be notified of the ruling at the same time as the Home.

Asylum seekers will no longer be notified straight away when they lose their appeals in a bid to stop them absconding before they can be removed from Britain, under new measures published by the Ministry of Justice.

Currently, the applicant is notified of the immigration tribunal’s final decision at the same time as the Home Office, giving them the opportunity to go underground if they are determined to avoid being sent back to their home country.

But under secondary legislation published by ministers the immigration service will be given a “heads up” before the asylum seeker is notified of the outcome.

It will now be the Home Office’s duty to notify the applicant of the decision – possibly allowing immigration officers to detain them on the spot if there is deemed to be a risk of them disappearing.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “This amended procedural rule allows for the first-tier and upper tribunals to serve a final decision notice on the Home Office for onward service on the appellant, as they do with other types of asylum appeal decisions.”
Related Articles

“This will enable the Home Office to consider any additional arrangements that may be necessary when serving the decision on the appellant, such as taking measures to prevent the parties absconding or ensuring the vulnerable receive additional support.”

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said last night: “This is an entirely sensible step to take. Indeed it is overdue. Far too many failed asylum seekers are succeeding in staying on in Britain.”

Mark Reckless MP, a Conservative member of the Home Affairs Select Committee said: “It is a very positive measure. One of the big problems with the existing system was tipping off asylum seekers about the decision so they had a chance to abscond.

“Delaying notification about their decision until they are ready to deport them and not giving them notice should result in many more deportations and is something I strongly support.