Makai v R.

Trafficking for sexual exploitation is serious offending even where the persons recruited agreed to work as prostitutes and the offender did not control the later brothel operation. Sentencing must assess coercion and control, the nature of the exploitation, victim vulnerability, the offender’s involvement, and aggravating features including scale, organisation and financial gain.

In the absence of coercion, the applicable guideline starting point is two years’ custody, within a range of one to four years. A sentence at the top of that range may be manifestly excessive where the charged operation is limited and specified aggravating features are absent. The asserted benefits of arrangements facilitating prostitution do not reduce the seriousness of statutory trafficking.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to conspiracy to traffic two Hungarian women into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. He and his co-accused recruited women in Hungary, arranged their travel, and passed them to others who placed them in brothels. The appellant received about £3,000 for each woman but had no previous convictions and did not manage the brothels.

His Honour Judge Webb imposed 40 months’ imprisonment, allowing 20 per cent credit for the late guilty plea. The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether that sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the limited scale of the charged operation, the absence of specified aggravating features, and later available sentencing guidance.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.

2. The substantive offence under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 57, criminalises intentional arrangements or facilitation of a person’s arrival with the relevant intention. The court rejected the submission that facilitating women who chose to work as prostitutes was beneficial or reduced culpability. That submission was inconsistent with the statute, its maximum sentence of 14 years, and the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s assessment that trafficking is repugnant and serious offending.

3. The Guidelines required a custodial sentence. Seriousness depends on coercion and control, the nature of the sexual exploitation, age and vulnerability, and the offender’s level of involvement. Large-scale commercial activity, planning, organisation, financial gain, coercion and vulnerability aggravate the offence. In the absence of coercion, the stated starting point was two years’ custody, with a range of one to four years; where coercion is involved, it was six years, with a range of four to nine years.

4. The appellant’s operation, as charged, was materially smaller than the comparators. He handed the women to others and did not manage the brothels. Although the risks to women transferred for a fee were important, the specified aggravating features were absent apart from limited financial gain. The judge had selected a four-year starting point at the top of the applicable range. After allowing appropriate credit for the guilty plea, 30 months was the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 30 months’ imprisonment for the Crown Court sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: Following the appellant’s guilty plea to conspiracy to traffic into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation, His Honour Judge Webb imposed 40 months’ imprisonment on 11 January 2007.