Khan, R. v

Sentencing for trafficking for labour exploitation under section 4 requires an assessment of the deception or coercion used, the exploitation and control imposed, the worker’s vulnerability and harm, the organisation and gain involved, the number of victims, and relevant previous convictions. A victim’s status as a stranger is not itself an aggravating feature of this offence.

Prolonged, planned and profit-driven exploitation of multiple vulnerable workers may require substantial custodial sentences and general deterrence. A hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is not presumed merely because its statutory conditions are met or experts recommend it. The court must weigh the offender’s condition against the seriousness of the offending.

Following a 12-week trial at Leeds Crown Court, Shahnawaz Ali Khan, Raza Ali Khan and Perveen Khan were convicted of conspiracy to traffic persons for labour exploitation contrary to section 4 of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. Each received three years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution evidence showed a four-year scheme in which nine non-EEA workers were recruited on false promises, deprived of documents and wages, subjected to excessive hours and abuse, and kept economically dependent on the offenders.

The Solicitor General referred the sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offenders also sought leave to appeal their sentences. Perveen Khan contended that the judge should have made a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

1. The court granted the Solicitor General leave to review the sentences. It held that the three-year sentences imposed on the two male offenders were unduly lenient. Their sentences were quashed and replaced with four years’ imprisonment. Perveen Khan’s three-year sentence was left unchanged, and all three applications for leave to appeal sentence were refused.

2. For an offence under section 4 of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, seriousness depends on the nature of the deception or coercion, the degree of workplace exploitation, the control used to keep the worker economically trapped, vulnerability, harm, organisation, gain, role, victim numbers, and relevant previous convictions. The fact that an exploited worker is a stranger is not an aggravating feature of the basic offence.

3. This was a persistent, organised and profit-driven scheme affecting nine vulnerable workers over more than four years. It involved deception of both workers and the Home Office, severe restrictions on the workers’ autonomy, financial exploitation and conduct close to slavery. General deterrence was appropriate. The proper starting point after trial was six years’ imprisonment; five years was appropriate after limited personal mitigation. The additional burden of the Attorney General reference justified a reduction to four years for the male offenders.

4. The court followed Khelifi [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 650: satisfaction of section 37 conditions does not create a presumption in favour of a hospital order. The sentencing judge had carefully evaluated Perveen Khan’s depressive disorder, her exaggeration of symptoms, her capacity to serve imprisonment, and the gravity of the offence. Her illness had no causative influence on the offending. The judge therefore made no error of principle in imposing imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the Solicitor General leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to review the sentences; increased the two male offenders’ sentences and refused the offenders’ applications for leave to appeal sentence.
• Leeds Crown Court: Following conviction after trial, HHJ Marson QC sentenced each offender to three years’ imprisonment on 7 May 2010 and, for Perveen Khan, on 13 September 2010.