Hold the Gate….
This is a familiar phrase for anyone who visits Florida jails or prisons. It means that the exit gates and doors are locked shut as there are inmates walking past.
Its 8am, and as I walk though the gate into the elevator lobby in the Pre-trial Detention Center in Miami, I hear the familiar phrase and a line of inmates in Orange shuffle past me, handcuffed in two’s and shackled to the inmates in front. They are all on their way to court. Some say ‘Good morning Miss’, others nod at me or smile, others keep their heads down or eyes straight ahead. These are usually the inmates who are new to the system, and who cannot grasp what is going on around them.
This part of the jail is mainly metal gates, the lobby echoes, and with all these inmates and the corrections officers directing them, the sound is deafening. I get the nod from the front office, the interview room on the floor I need to visit is free, I can go up. Despite the fact the room is full of shackled inmates, with no space to squeeze around the edge of them, I will not miss the opportunity to get into an interview room, there are only one or two on each floor and as the day progresses they will become more in demand. I eye up a couple of inmates who have nodded to me and said ‘Good Morning’ to me.
“Excuse me lads, you couldn’t just crouch down so that I can jump over your chains could you?” They oblige and I skip over their chains and head for he lift. Don’t get me wrong, I have no illusions that all inmates will be nice to me, and I will never duck under the chains, as it would be all too easy for an inmate to loop that chain around my neck. For the very same reason I will not sit in an interview room with an inmate who is handcuffed (inmates are handcuffed to the front), although I believe I have a good gauge of my defendants, and have never had a client, either in England or anywhere else, make a move on me, I don’t want to be in a 6′ x 6′ locked room with an inmate who has a metal strangulation method on their wrists, everyone has bad days..
The inmate I am going to see is charged with capital murder, but is not considered to be a high risk, and so is on one of the less violent floors. He is based in a pen with 23 other inmates. The corrections officers know me as I regularly visit him and spend hours with him in interview. They take my badge and allow me to walk down to the pen gate. Before I can yell to my inmate, others have seen me coming and have already called him. The rules don’t allow me to stand at the gate and talk to the inmates, but it doesn’t prevent me from taking a very slow walk back to the interview room whilst chatting to the inmates who have come to the penn gate. To many, this is the only contact they get with someone who is not a corrections officer or inmate. Our conversations are like normal office talk ‘did you see the game last night?’ ‘Have you heard the new Usher track?’.
I wait in the interview room for my client to be brought in. He is handcuffed and the first thing I ask is ‘Cuffs off please’. The corrections officer is new, to the floor, I have not seen him before. “I don’t know m’am. Its for safety.” he says. I look at my client “You aren’t scared of your safety with me in the room are you?”. He laughs, and the guard takes the cuffs off. I shake hands with the client and we sit. There is just enough space for the table and two chairs, the room has windows on two sides and as we talk, the inmates outside preparing the lunch trays watch us. They are ‘Trustees’ which means they have earnt the right to be out of their penn carrying out jobs. Earning the right usually means they have behaved themselves, but it also means they have been in jail for a long time. They know me and know better than to interrupt my interview by banging on the window, or trying to attract my attention, but they give a small wave and nod as they go past, and I return the same.
This client is one I first met two years ago, and I have spent a lot of time with him since. He is charged with capital murder,
“How are you doing” I ask.
“Ok, there was a fight in the penn last night. Dude got shanked, he was cut real bad”
“Who?”. He tells me, and I recognize the name. An inmate who is a co defendant on one of my other cases.
“Can you find out how he is?” Just as I think my client is feeling compassion for this inmate, he continues “cause he has a good bunk and if he ain’t coming back I want his bunk”.
“Wow you are all heart, you know that?” I make it clear that I am not impressed with his lack of compassion. He just nods.
We talk about things that have happened in the jail since my last visit and then we talk about the specific element of his mitigation that I want to cover that day. This client is not the easiest to obtain information from, not because he is not prepared to talk, but because his thought processes don’t work in a logical way. I cannot ask direct questions as he either does not understand them or cannot think through the answers. So I have to ask roundabout questions. For example when I asked him ‘Did they cuff you to the back in the cop car?’ he didn’t know. But when I said, think about sitting in the cop car, was it uncomfortable, did it hurt?’ he replied ‘yeah, as they had my hands cuffed behind my back so I couldn’t sit back’. I have probably spent over 200 hours with this client, and from that have obtained the occasional chink of helpful information. That is one of the benefits that I can provide to the public defender’s office, as I am a volunteer, I am not on the clock and can spend hours sitting talking to the clients, whereas my colleagues cannot justify doing so as they have so much other work to do.
We talk for about an hour and I manage to get a small amount of useful information from my client. I always try to finish the interview on a positive note, rather than dwelling not he case, and this morning we talk about one of my recent escapades…
I bang on the window to let the corrections officers know I want to be released, but I am not sure that they hear me as they don’t make a move, so I catch the attention of the trustee and get him to let them know I want releasing. I do often wonder, if my client were to start kicking off whether the corrections officers would notice in time to help, but fortunately I have never had that scenario. I have had situations where I can see that a client is changing their demeanor (I have one client who hears the Devil every so often), and when that happens I decide it is time to go, the last thing I want is for my client to get in trouble because I have pushed his buttons too much.
As I leave the interview room I have a chat with the trustees, one of them wants to know whether I can teach him the rules of soccer. “Another day’ Honey..’ I say as I get in the elevator.
The lift arrives in the lobby to another mass of orange, and the familiar ‘Hold the gate’. Once again I am trapped in this noisy lobby with over 40 inmates. One of them leers over towards me, I stand my ground…any sign of weakness can get a beating or a reputation of being scared…I want neither. The line of shackles move off and the leering inmate moves forward and out of my way…
The gate is released and I can walk out into the sun and humidity of a Miami morning. Every time I walk out of the jail I am eternally grateful that I have my freedom, and the humidity, that I usually bitch about, is suddenly a great feeling. I am aware that some of my clients have not had that feeling for the last 5 years, and may not get it again for a long time, and when they do, it will be in a yard surrounded by barbed wire and watch towers.
Since the Trevor McDonald programme I have been inundated with questions about my life with death row prisoners, and those in jail awaiting trial for capital cases and who may be ordered to face the death penalty. This is the first in a series of blogs to explain the reality..which is nowhere near as glamorous and dramatic as the TV indicates. This extract of a jail visit is made up of my experiences with different clients in order to protect and preserve their anonymity.
I am happy to answer questions about my work, but I will not under any circumstances provide any access to my clients, so please don’t ask me if you can interview my clients, visit my clients, interview me about my clients, or come with me on a visit to the jail or prisons because the answer will be a resounding ‘NO’ . These are peoples lives I am dealing with. I am not a bleeding heart lawyer, I accept that some of my clients are guilty, and some are innocent, and that the guilty ones caused the death of another, often in horrific circumstances, but that does not make them a circus animal they are still entitled to the best representation, and I will do my utmost to protect them to make sure that there is a due process of law.
Defending the Indefensible – There is no such thing
Representing Hillsborough Police Officers – Why I am Taking Up the Challenge
Following on from the recent media reports about the planned police and IPCC investigations into the actions of the police in the Hillsborough tragedy, I thought it best to add my point of view before rumours get out otherwise of my intended involvement in the defence of police officers.
Mark George QC in his article for the Justice Gap http://thejusticegap.com/News/hillsborough-end-of-beginning-for-campaign-for-justice/
summarises the issues facing the investigators and I don’t disagree with anything he says. I do believe that the families of those involved in the tragedy deserve justice. However, I am always fearful of a knee jerk reaction where there is an instant attempt by the media and others to find someone to blame – and that blame has fallen squarely with the police.
I was asked a few weeks ago while I always feel the need to defend the indefensible. To which my answer was ‘there is no such thing as indefensible, everyone is entitled to a defence.’ However, it is true that I enjoy a challenge and if I have a choice will usually opt for representing the underdog, whether it be a football supporter who is classified as a hooligan by the public who do not even know the supporter, but has classified them purely due to the football team they support, or the person who finds themselves facing the death penalty despite the fact they were suffering from severe mental illness at the time of the killing. My blog on ‘How I defend Killers and Sleep at Night’ http://wp.me/p2vym0-4h explains my thinking on this point.
This leads me on to my willingness to represent police officers who are facing investigation under the new Hillsborough investigations. These investigations will be unprecedented, and some officers will face years of investigation, inquiry and litigation from IPCC investigations to police disciplinaries to inquests and criminal proceedings. In all of these, the officers have a right to a fair hearing. The question has to be asked, as to how fair those hearings will be when they are up against a police service which will want to make individual officers responsible rather than the Force, where the IPCC will be well aware that anything other than recommending action against the police will likely result in media assassination. Meanwhile, the Tomlinson trial, Plebgate, the Hillsborough inquiry, and the phone hacking inquiry has meant that the public perception of the police is at the lowest it has been for many years, in light of this will a police officer facing a jury trial be in a fair position?
I believe that there may have been officers who acted without integrity during the tragedy itself and afterwards, but in general these will have been the higher ranks who had more to lose. It is the lower ranking officers who now have the most to lose – reputation, pension, and at worse liberty. These officers are entitled, as any other defendant, to the best defence that they can get. Those of us at the Bar who have the experience of the IPCC, police disciplinary proceedings, inquests and criminal cases are in the best position to offer that defence. We are impartial, independent and should not be swayed by public opinion, will not be pressurised by the Police Forces concerned, or the Government. It is in situations such as this where the independent Bar comes into its own.
Many colleagues have raised the point that by openly stating my support for the defence of Hillsborough police officers, I may lose my other client bases, those who bring actions against the police, those charged with serious criminal offences, and football fans who feel they are wrongly stigmatised by the police as hooligans. My response to this – I have represented police officers and others for years. It is my knowledge and experience that draws in my clients and not my affiliations (of which I have none other than to ensure that everyone has a fair trial). It is this broad stretch of work that ensures that I have in-depth knowledge of the criminal justice system, what I learn from representing police officers I can then use when bringing actions against the police, what I learn from representing those who are charged with criminal offences helps me when representing police officers.
A few years ago, while acting as a Prosecutor, I had a confrontation with a police officer during a debrief, in which I threatened to nail his shoulders to the wall if he shrugged at me once more. Obviously my comment did not go down well with him, and we spent the next few years avoiding each other, until he was facing disciplinary proceedings and he called me. When I asked why he wanted me to represent him when we clearly did not have a good relationship, he replied that as I had the guts to take him on in front of a room full of officers he felt I had the guts to see his case through and fight for him. And he was right, our past history did not matter, and I would hope that all my past and future clients feel the same, I don’t have to like them or what they stand for, and the same applies to their thoughts on me….what matters most is that they receive a fair trial or hearing and that the outcome is fair.
An Application for a Football Banning Order is not a Done Deal for the Police or CPS
‘When I walked into the pub and spoke to Football Fan 1 and tried to engage in discussion about today’s game he ignored me. I then saw him in a crowd chanting football songs as he walked to the ground. When in the ground he sat in his seat initially but then moved to another seat..showing complete disrespect to the stewards. he was wearing a black Northface jacket which is the attire worn by many risk football fans at football matches…After the game he was seen to be giving hostile looks at some opposing team supporters as he stood outside the kebab shop, I then saw him go inside the off license and slam the door. All of this leads me to believe that he is a risk supporter with no regard to the police or other fans. His lack of engagement with the police show that he is anti-police, and his chanting in the street was in a residential area where women and children who were not attending the football match could have been present and could have been frightened and offended by the chanting and group mentality.‘
THIS IS AN ACCUMULATION OF COMMENTS MADE BY FOOTBALL INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THEIR STATEMENTS TO THE COURT. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL STATEMENT, BUT IT GIVES A GOOD FLAVOUR OF THE TYPES OF ‘INTELLIGENCE’ AND COMMENTS MADE BY OFFICERS IN FOOTBALL BANNING APPLICATIONS.
With the football season well underway, now is the time that many police Football Intelligence Officers start to collate the ‘intelligence’ collected during the past few months on football fans. For some fans, the result is that they face an application made by the police or Crown Prosecution Service for a Football Banning Order. The recent Home Office statistics show that in comparison with the number of arrests which are made at football matches, the number of successful football banning applications is quite high. However, from speaking to fans who are or have been served with a football banning order application, the reason for this seems to be that in the main, fans will accept the banning order as they believe that if they have been arrested before or after a football match that means they can be banned from attending football matches in the future. Although the Football Spectators Act 1989 seems to indicate this, there is a wealth of case law which has narrowed this quite considerably, I have included some of the case law in this blog for those who have an interest in reading more.
When considering the imposition of a FBO the court should consider both the factual evidence – whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 14 Spectators Supporters Act 1989, but also the persuasive evidence, in effect this is where the court is being asked to make a decision on what is likely to happen in the future. The persuasive evidence which can be taken into account by the court includes:-
- evidence that the defendant has not previously been warned about their behaviour at football matches;
- evidence that the defendant has not been convicted in any court of any football related disorder or violence previously;
- evidence that there have been no previous applications (criminal or civil) for FBO in respect of the defendant;
- evidence that there have been no previous attempts to control this defendant or that any control efforts have failed;
- no evidence that the behavior of the defendant had a detrimental effect on other football fans, or caused other football fans to become involved in disorder or violence;
So what is the meaning of ‘football related’?
The Court of Appeal has made it clear (R v Arbery & Mobley [2008], and R v Mabee (Craig) [2007). There should be a distinction drawn between violence arising directly from the football, and violence or disorder carried out by those who follow football. Hence a football fan who decides to fight another football fan due to their colours, whether inside or outside of the football match, may fall into the category of disorder or violence arising directly in connection with a football match. However, two fans who have a fight in a pub over a spilt drink, and who both just happen to be wearing football colours or intending to attend a local football match will not fall into this category. The relationship between the violence and the football must be explored in the facts of each particular case.
In Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2002] the Court of appeal made it clear that a FBO cannot be made purely due to a defendant’s history of violence. The circumstances of the individual case under consideration should be taken along with the past conduct of the defendant, and whether these indicate that there is a likelihood that they will be involved in future violence or disorder. The issue for the court is very specific with regard to preventing future football related disorder, not just a general deterrence relating to any violent disorder.
In Doyle and others the Court of Appeal addressed the definition of football related and determined “because the Act requires the judgment of the Court whether the particular offence was ‘related to football matches’ it is clear that the mere fact that the defendant was on a journey to or from a match is not enough. There must be another connection…We offer the observation that it will not by itself be enough to make an offence ‘related to football matches’ that it would not have occurred “but for” the fact that [the defendant] was en route to or from a football match. If that by itself were enough, then every offence of the listed kind which was committed on a journey to or from a match would automatically qualify and the additional test of relation to football matches would be unnecessary and meaningless”.
Hence in the consideration of whether to impose a FBO in this case on either or both of these defendants, the Court should only impose an order if is it satisfied so that it is sure, that the FBO is required for the court to prevent further acts of violence or disorder at a football match, or in connection with a football match. In doing so, the Court should consider
- whether the offences on which the defendant was convicted were actually football related; and
- even if it was deemed to be considered football related, the Court must be satisfied that there is a likelihood that the defendant is going to be involved in acts of disorder or violence in the future; and
- that such acts will be football related;
- that a FBO will prevent such disorder or violence.
The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
to believe the FBO would prevent future disorder or violence
It is clear that FBO must not be made merely as a matter of course following the conviction of a football fan for a disorder or violence related offence (RVBoggild et al), consideration must be made of the facts of the individual case in front of the court. It has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights that in cases where such orders are imposed, that to restrict the actions of a defendant in the future, on the basis of a belief in how the defendant is going to behave in the future ‘the court must determine whether a fair balance [is] struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights’ (Sporrong5).
In Doyle and others v R [2012] the Court of Appeal addressed this issue directly and stated “..what is important to remember is …that there must be a risk of repetition of violence or disorder at a match before it is met…….it is clear that it is not automatically satisfied because the current offence was football related.”
Hence, even if the offence is football related, it is clear that does not automatically justify the imposition of the FBO, in other words the court must ask itself is it necessary to impose a FBO to stop/prevent likely future disorder or violence at a football match?
So going back to the sample statement at the beginning of this blog, it is very unlikely that the list of complaints included in it would be taken by the court to show that a person has been involved in football related disorder nor that they are likely to be involved in disorder in the future. However, in my experience many fans will accept the ban rather than challenge the statement, but without appreciating the consequences of a banning order, which in addition to a ban from attending any football games, can include exclusion from the town on match days, a ban from using the railway network on match days, a ban on traveling overseas when any team match or England match is played overseas. And these bans can run to 5 years..that’s a very extreme restriction based on the weak comments in the sample statement.
Challenging a football banning order is not the right thing for every fan, but if the application is served on a fan, they should give careful consideration to whether it actually shows that they are a risk of committing football related disorder in the future.
How I Defend Killers and Still Sleep at Night
As a defence lawyer I am often asked how I cope with representing those defendants charged with the most serious crimes, in particular rapes and murders. Much of my work is with defendants facing the death penalty in Florida, so they are alleged to have committed the most heinous of murders.
For me, the answer is simple, I believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that involves legal representation by a person committed to their case. In all my cases, it is not my role to judge the guilt or innocence of my client, that is for the magistrates or jury. My role is to review the evidence and to advise my client on the evidence as it stands. I will often advise a client that based on the evidence, I consider that a jury will find them guilty, however the decision remains theirs as to whether they plead guilty or take the case to trial. They have a right to a trial, even if the evidence is stacked up against them, and I can quote many high profile cases where the media portrayal of the evidence was such that it was assumed that the defendant would be found guilty, yet the jury found otherwise.
I believe very strongly that a client should have the right over their own destiny, and if they want to take their case to trial, even with the odds stacked against them, that is their decision. Who am I to dictate to them how they should behave, if I have advised them of the consequences as I see them, it is up to the client to decide how to deal with those consequences.
Nowadays I choose to act solely for the defence, however in the past I have prosecuted and defended, and as such I am fully aware that not all my clients are innocent, and that in many cases there is a victim involved. The impact of the crime on the victim should not be ignored. I know of some lawyers who will always try to justify their client’s offending, and will try to vilify the victim. That is not a practice I admire. For one, the fact that there is a victim means that as well as the defendant, there is at least one other person whose life has been affected by the crime (and I put in this manner as it is rare for false accusations to be made in court, so there has usually been a crime committed, what is questionable is whether my client committed the offence). Secondly, to ignore the impact on the victim means that the feelings and empathy of the jury is also being ignored, and this is dangerous, a lack of understanding of the jury means that a defendant may not be receiving the best advice on how the evidence against him or her is going to be perceived by the jury.
I can sleep at night as I know I give my clients the best representation that I can, and I hope that this results in them receiving a fair trial if they decide to plead not guilty, or a fair sentencing hearing if they decide to plead guilty. I am not perfect and they may be cases where I have misjudged the impact of evidence, or miscalculated a jury, however I always fight for my client no matter who they are or their alleged offense. If that means I earn some bad publicity on the way, due to the offences charged, then so be it, this is the profession I have chosen, and I consider myself to be fortunate to be able to do a job I love.
Football Banning Order spiraling out of control – from drinking in sight of the pitch to a 5 month prison sentence!
The news reports of the football fan who has just received a 5 month prison sentence for breaching his football banning order, makes it an opportune time to remind fans how acceptance of a football banning order, in the belief that it is a civil order, can result in a criminal conviction and prison sentence.
While I don’t have first hand knowledge of this case, and will leave you to draw your own conclusions from the news article below, the circumstances are similar to those that play out in magistrates and crown courts all over England and Wales during every football season. A Football Banning Order can be requested by the police against a fan who they police deem to be causing or likely to cause disorder at football matches. This is a civil order, and many fans will accept the order without challenge due to the fact it is civil and they are under the impression that they cannot challenge it in court. That impression is incorrect, although it is a civil order, the consequences of breaching it are criminal and as such it can be challenged from the first stage.
A civil order can be imposed on a fan by the Magistrates Court for between 3 and 5 years. If the fan breaches that order (and a breach can be as simple as entering a town on a saturday where the fan’s team are playing) then the fan can face a prison sentence. If it is a Home game, this often means that a fan, subject to a football banning order, who takes his or her family into town on a Saturday can be arrested. The breach then becomes a criminal case and this can result in prison.
The fan may consider that the alleged incident in or outside of the football ground which resulted in the football banning order was a minor incident. They may also consider that taking their family into town on a Saturday is a minor incident and as such they will be able to talk their way out of it with the Police or the Magistrates Court. This is a big mistake. The Football Banning Order is a court order and the courts take the breach of one of their orders very seriously. So the simple facts of the case will not excuse the fan, the fact they have breached a court order will mean that they will likely be sentenced to a criminal sanction which can include imprisonment. And hence the minor incident has a life changing effect on the fan, a criminal record, and possibly a period at Her Majesty’s Pleasure!
The key to all of this is not to immediately accept the order, or panic when a summons arrives on the doorstep or is handed over by a police officer. It is best to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity, and most lawyers specializing in football banning orders will provide their initial advice for free. But even if things have started to spiral out of control, and a criminal conviction for breaching an order is looming, seek advice. Not only the future of attending football matches, but also of work and liberty may depend on whether advice is sought.
5 month prison sentence all started with drinking in sight of the pitch at a football match
Dazzled by Science – The Dangers of Lie Detectors
About this time last year I sat in a conference room in a hotel in New York surrounded by lawyers, homicide and vice cops, and journalists, while an academic demonstrated the wonders of a new lie detector test he was developing – the use of MRI scans to test a person’s truthfulness. In essence, he was showing us images of the brain and explaining that when the subjects lied, certain parts of their brain glowed red on the scan and that this could be transferred to the use of MRI scans in the criminal justice system, if a person responded to a question and a certain section of their brian glowed red on the screen then they were lying.
As I looked around the room I was amazed at how easily all these delegates who, by nature of their professions should have been overly inquisitive and skeptical, were lapping up this information. When I raised my hand and asked if anyone else was feeling as uncomfortable as I with these findings, based on tests with those who were not people under criminal investigation, I was greeted with a looks of distain. With the exception of a homicide cop, no one else in the room seemed to have a problem with the suggestion that this was the ‘future’ of interviewing defendants.
While I accept that I am not scientifically minded and as such can be skeptical of a lot of scientific findings, my main issues with this new lie detector model were that the testing was done on students, in a controlled environment, who had volunteered to take part in the research, they were all at least college level educated, and had been given a script, and had then been told whether they had to lie or tell the truth from the script. There had been no testing of defendants of low intelligence, placed in the extremely stressful environment of a police interview room, who were sleep deprived, had recently taken illicit or prescribed drugs. Neither had there been any testing of defendants who had good reason to lie to protect themselves or others, and who knew that they were in danger of facing a lengthy prison sentence.
Even worse, the fact that all of these people, who should have known better than just to accept findings without questioning them, had collectively accepted the findings, made me realize that a jury would be unlikely to question any of the findings. If the scan showed a brain glowing red, the subject would have lied, and hence the jury would have no reason not to find them guilty.
And that is the reason that the lie detector must be viewed with skepticism, it is rarely tested in the exact environment. I have spoken to many defendants in the USA who have been the subject of a lie detector, many felt scared of the physical element of the test, having wires attached to a cuff on their arm and chest. The demeanor of the person carrying out the test has a big impact on many defendants, some felt that they were being encouraged to answer in a certain way by the machine operator. The format of the questions can have a big impact on the answers given by the defendant. Finally the analysis requires someone to make an assessment of the findings, I have experience of the same defendant answering the same questions in three different tests and each assessor came up with a different conclusion.
In theory, the tests that have been carried out on sex offenders may have produced some results which can be seen as positive, but can they actually also be determined as truthful? And if the lie detector is introduced in this area, how long will it be before it is introduced into the criminal justice system in other areas. Beware the dazzling effect of the mumbo jumbo…..
Does it look like someone has tried to scratch their way out of the door in a brothel? Chances are the person you have had sex with is a human trafficking victim
Following on from my previous blog about human trafficking victims no longer found handcuffed to a bed in a brothel, which concentrated many on labour trafficking, it is now time to dispel some of the myths about sex trafficking.
Recent reports of police raids of brothels, and convictions of individuals for trafficking young girls and forcing them to work in the brothels, sex trafficking has again received an increased media profile. However, these cases highlighted in the news are only the tip of the iceberg, and the sad reality is that most victims are not found until it is too late.
The US State Department report released last week makes it clear that the detection, prosecution and conviction rates for sex and labour trafficking are woefully low. This is not a country or region based problem, globally the war on human trafficking is not being won. One of the main problems is that human trafficking is a vast organized crime, which preys on those who are the most vulnerable or disadvantaged. By it’s very nature the majority of sex trafficked victims are kept below the radar as in many countries brothels and prostitution are illegal.
Although there are many specialised law enforcement units working throughout the UK to identify sex traffickers and their victims, without the assistance of the public and neighborhood law enforcement, it is questionable whether the battle against sex trafficking in the UK can ever be won.
The Police Service Northern Ireland have recently launched an initiative to educate those people who use the brothels. It is not unusual for a client of a brothel to question whether the person (woman, man, boy or girl) servicing them is doing so voluntarily. In many cases, a client will have been asked by the person servicing them to call the police or to help them. However, there are very few clients who have then made contact with the police or tried to help. The excuse “I didn’t want to get involved” is one which comes up time and time again. In reality, all that it would have taken to assist that victim is an anonymous phone call to the police. While it is accepted that campaigns aimed at educating clients about the possibility that they are having sex with a human trafficking victim will not prevent these clients from using the brothels, it may help to raise awareness of the small things that they can do to help. A phone call to the police or a Human trafficking support group to report a door that looks as though someone has tried to scratch their way out, or a girl who is covered in burn marks or bruises, may be the difference between life and death for that girl.
The biggest stumbling block for law enforcement is that most of the brothels which house the trafficking victims are not in mainstream places, and are not known as brothels. A house in the middle of a housing estate, or a van driving up and down a motorway is the modern day brothel. All it takes is an advert in the back of a newspaper, or on the internet, and the clients will come flooding in. Many clients find the thrill of tracking down the van in the service station, or entering the house through the back door at midnight to be as much of a thrill as the sex they will then purchase when they are inside. This is where raising public awareness makes all the difference. A neighbour who notices that there are visitors to a house all day and night, and who calls their local neighborhood police officer, or local authority anti-social behaviour officer may ultimately be reporting on a sex trafficking ring without even knowing it.
The time has come to educate the public into looking for the signs of sex trafficking, the neighbour, the security guard at the service station, the local neighborhood police officer who regularly speaks to the local prostitutes or their clients, all of these have a vital role in the fight against sex trafficking.
Share this:
alisongurden 