K, R. v

K, R. v

The trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting section 4(4)(d) of the 2004 Act, requiring proof that youth was the sole ground for choice, and by treating the absence of the couriers' evidence and willingness as determinative. The correct test is whether youth and the likelihood of adult refusal were factors in the choice, not necessarily the sole or main factors. There was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury on all counts.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; 1st Respondent: K; 2nd Respondent: W; 3rd Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Ruling of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial to be resumed before a new jury
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Exploitation of Children, Drug Offences, Interpretation of Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants Etc) Act 2004, Modern Slavery Act 2015
Criminal Law Trafficking Exploitation of Children Drug Offences Interpretation of Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants Etc) Act 2004 Modern Slavery Act 2015

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

K

1st Respondent

W

2nd Respondent

A

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Ruling of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer on charges of trafficking children for exploitation under section 4(1A)(b) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'arranging or facilitating travel' and 'chosen on the grounds of youth' under section 4
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution must prove the child was chosen solely on grounds of youth and lack of consent

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting section 4(4)(d) of the 2004 Act, requiring proof that youth was the sole ground for choice, and by treating the absence of the couriers' evidence and willingness as determinative. The correct test is whether youth and the likelihood of adult refusal were factors in the choice, not necessarily the sole or main factors. There was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury on all counts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial to be resumed before a new jury

Orders

  • Judge's ruling of no case to answer reversed
  • Trial to be resumed before a new jury on counts 1 to 6