Director of Public Prosecutions v M

A positive conclusive-grounds decision of the Single Competent Authority may be admitted in a criminal trial as expert evidence relevant to whether a child was trafficked or exploited. It is not determinative, and its weight depends on its evidential foundation and the other evidence.

A child need not give evidence or provide an interview explanation to discharge the evidential burden under section 45(4) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Circumstantial evidence may establish an inference that offending was a direct consequence of exploitation. The reasonable-person limb requires assessment of the child’s age, relevant characteristics and situation as a whole. The seriousness of the offence remains relevant, but has less significance for a child than for an adult.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the acquittal of M, aged 15, at Wimbledon Youth Court. M had been charged with possessing a bladed article and Class A drugs. The District Judge accepted that M had raised the statutory defence in section 45(4) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and held that the prosecution had not disproved it.

The appeal concerned whether M had discharged the evidential burden despite not giving evidence or providing an explanation in interview, whether the Single Competent Authority’s positive conclusive-grounds decision was admissible, and whether the evidence established the required connection between exploitation, the offending and the reasonable-person test.

1. Appeal dismissed. The answer to the stated question was yes. M had sufficiently discharged the evidential burden under section 45(4) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the prosecution had not disproved the defence.
2. A conclusive-grounds decision of the Single Competent Authority was admissible as expert evidence. Trafficking and exploitation were matters on which an ordinary person might require assistance from someone with relevant experience. The decision-maker’s expertise arose from training, experience and regular assessment of trafficking cases. Any weakness in the factual foundation affected weight rather than admissibility. The decision was not determinative.
3. The evidential burden did not require M to testify or to provide an explanation in police interview. The direct and circumstantial evidence showed that M was a missing child, had no apparent connection with Tooting, had no previous convictions, and was with two boys with significant histories of drug and knife offending. His possession of the items while those boys possessed no comparable items supported an inference that his presence and offending had been facilitated for exploitation. The prosecution evidence did not displace that inference.
4. For a child, section 45(4) did not require proof of force, threats, deception or compulsion. The relevant exploitation provision was section 3(6) of the Act: the child had to have been chosen because he was a child and an adult would have been likely to refuse the relevant use. The SCA decision could not itself determine whether the offending was a direct consequence of exploitation or whether the reasonable-person limb was satisfied.
5. The reasonable person had to be assessed by reference to the whole of the person’s situation and relevant characteristics. Age alone would not necessarily suffice. The seriousness of the offending was relevant, but less significant for a child than for an adult because a child was more likely to act without a proper understanding of the nature and consequences of the conduct.
6. The court also made an indefinite anonymity order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The order was necessary and proportionate, having regard to M’s vulnerability, trafficking status, age and Article 8 interests.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court heard the DPP’s appeal by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and section 28A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
• Wimbledon Youth Court: The District Judge acquitted M of possession of a bladed article and possession of heroin and cocaine, applying the statutory defence in section 45(4) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.