Abstract
Modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT) covers a wide diversity of offending where individuals and groups are exploited primarily for financial gain. As we see in this Special Issue of Probation Journal, it operates globally, inter-, and intra-nationally by perpetrators within highly organised serious crime groups, loosely connected groups, family groups or as opportunistic individuals. International efforts to eradicate slavery and trafficking are proving challenging, with estimates of victimisation of adults and children continually increasing both globally and within the UK (Walk Free, n.d.). Despite its widespread nature, this type of offending has not fully been understood in the context of probation work and policy.
This special edition of the Probation Journal was conceived ten years following the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It brings together experts with specific research interests of MSHT within the UK, a survivor who experienced child criminal exploitation, and practitioners within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. The aims of the Special Issue are threefold: to provide an overview of both what MSHT-related offending looks like so that practitioners can better understand it; to offer examples of good practice in relation to working with both perpetrators and victims of MSHT-related offending; and to identify some of the challenges in working with this type of offending through the lens of both probation policy and practice. The issue contains contributions from people working in practice and policy, the voluntary sector and academics and the contributions address these aims from a range of perspectives.
Neena Samota (St Mary's University), together with Cat Linton and Elizabeth Jiménez Yáñez (Hibiscus Initiatives) present a paper focussing on how a national strategy for probation can incorporate understandings of the criminalisation of race and gender in MSHT. They argue that HMPPS will reproduce existing problems unless it engages with intersecting dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender and nationality when formulating and implementing policy for MSHT.
Ann Snowden (HMPPS) proposes a new overarching model for prison and probation services in responding to MSHT which can be applied across all HMPPS operational services and respond to the needs of diverse cohorts. It includes raising awareness, and how justice-involved victims can be identified, supported to recover and protected from future exploitation. It also introduces specific approaches for working with perpetrators of MSHT. The model acknowledges the complexity of the victim-perpetrator overlap, particularly in the context of forced criminality and the importance of partnership working.
Larissa Sandy and James Tangen (University of Nottingham) provide a summary of existing literature and research from around the world to understand and highlight good practice and identify gaps in responses to MSHT. A key finding here is that hybridised criminal justice/social service intervention models (such as specialist trafficking courts and contextual safeguarding) are the dominant approach in both the USA and UK. The review finds these often replicate surveillance and control rather than delivering genuinely victim-centred or trauma-informed practice, with coercive participation undermining their rehabilitative intent. Their review, therefore, is a helpful contribution to the further development and provision of services in this emerging area of probation practice.
Ben Brewster and Nicola Wright (Rights Lab, University of Nottingham) draw on focus group data with survivor-advocates to show that individuals on probation who have the dual status of being identified as both victims and perpetrators of exploitation go unrecognised, falling between systems of care and control. Special attention is given to participants’ reflections on health and rehabilitation needs, highlighting critical gaps in probation, mental health, and support services with an emphasis on trauma-informed nuanced approaches within probation services. Their findings argue for a more relational and trauma-informed approach to probation supervision and for structural reforms to reduce the secondary victimisation produced by bureaucratic rigidity and fragmented service pathways.
Jon Davies and Rose Broad (University of Manchester) and colleagues examine the MSHT partnerships approach within the context of Greater Manchester, and the impacts on people with lived experience (PLE) of MSHT. Despite Greater Manchester having a broadly cohesive and well-connected MSHT partnership network the research identifies significant variations in how partnerships are developed and maintained to inform good practice developments. They also identify common pitfalls in attempts to strengthen ongoing partnership work in the space of MSHT. An over-reliance on individual ‘champions’ rather than embedded organisational roles means that specialist knowledge is routinely lost to staff turnover, and the absence of a shared strategic vision leaves coordination fragile and inconsistent across local authorities.
Sean Columb (University of Liverpool) analyses the organisational structure and activities of different criminal actors involved in the organ trade, citing the first criminal prosecution in the UK. The strengths and limitations of current legislation and the crime commission process are examined. Victim and perpetrator profiles are identified against a backdrop of growing reports of illicit organ removal in the UK and internationally in order to aid recognition of this crime. A central finding of this piece is that successful prosecution depended entirely on the victim self-identifying to police, exposing how the current framework prioritises criminalisation over victim protection and leaves those compelled to sell organs at risk of prosecution under the Human Tissue Act rather than recognition as modern slavery victims.
Alicia Heys and Andrew Smith (Wilberforce Institute, University of Hull) examine whether the devolution of child National Referral Mechanism (NRM) decision-making powers to local authorities is an effective method of improving multi-agency responses to child exploitation and providing meaningful support for British and non-British children. Their findings assert that the value of any positive NRM decision should be measured by the effectiveness of the support given in removing young people from exploitation and keeping them safe into adulthood. Darshna Chudasama (Youth Justice Service) then provides reflection on the NRM that Heys & Smith raise from the position of a Youth Justice Officer. She addresses the way child criminal exploitation surrounding drug trafficking ‘county lines’ activities and grooming for sexual exploitation are responded to. Chudasama encourages individually-tailored responses which highlight positive behaviours and empower survivors to identify their own answers whilst acknowledging the complexity of their experiences.
Sosa Henkoma, a survivor of child criminal exploitation is interviewed by Ann Snowden, where he reflects on his path out of exploitation and his experiences of prison and probation services. When his safety needs were acknowledged and responded to, he was able to gain further insights into his exploitation which contributed to his decisions to remove himself from future harmful situations.
Returning to the aims of this Special Issue, the contributions gathered here demonstrate three things clearly. First, MSHT-related offending spans offending types that practitioners will already encounter, such as county lines, to less familiar forms such as organ trafficking. It is also clear that understanding that range is a precondition for effective practice. Second, HMPPS, other statutory bodies and voluntary sector organisations are developing responses to MSHT, but many of these initiatives remain unevaluated and their effectiveness is poorly understood. Third, the overlap between victim and perpetrator status in MSHT cases is central to how probation services encounter this offending, and the tension between care and control is particularly acute in ways that current policy has not yet resolved.
MSHT-related offending therefore demands a policy and practice response that current frameworks have not yet delivered. Taken together, the papers in this issue confirm that probation has a distinctive and underutilised role in anti-slavery efforts. Progress has been made since the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but this Special Issue makes plain that significantly more research, policy development and practitioner support is needed if that role is to be fulfilled.
