Identifying pathways to support British victims of modern slavery towards safety and recovery: A scoping study

《现代奴隶制法》没有明确规定国家有义务向现代奴隶制的受害者提供支持。相反，确定和支持包括英国国民在内的所有现代奴隶制受害者的安排，是由国务大臣根据该法第49条发布的指导方针规定的。然而，《法定指引》没有承认，国阵受害者的需要和权利是不同的，需要采取不同的方法。事实上，经常发生的情况是，国阵受害者越来越多地向地方当局寻求支持，其中许多人仍然不知道他们在MSA下的责任。在如何提供这种服务和支持方面，未能向地方当局和第一反应者提供资源、培训或指导，加剧了这种放弃责任的情况。在她最近的报告中，独立反奴隶制专员萨拉·桑顿女士表达了她对保护国阵受害者的责任在受害者照顾合同（VCC）和法定机构之间缺乏明确性的担忧。对于那些因被迫犯罪而面临起诉的人来说，这尤其成问题。该法案为那些通过现代奴隶制被迫犯下刑事罪行的人提供了法定辩护（2015年MSA第45条）。然而，实施第45条辩护一直受到CPS的强烈抵制，他们继续寻求起诉潜在的受害者，尽管多机构的证据表明他们是潜在的受害者，起诉决定往往违反他们自己的指导方针。尽管该法第45条对那些被迫犯下某些罪行的人进行了法定辩护，但什么是“剥削”，以及与奴役、奴役、强迫或强制劳动和贩卖人口有关的刑事剥削在哪里，基本上是一个解释问题。刑事剥削没有法定定义，即法律中没有规定（Turner, Belcher, & Pona, 2019; Setter, Child Trafficking in UK, 2019）。因此，在如何定义和描述犯罪剥削方面存在广泛的不一致，不仅在它是什么方面，而且在谁可能是受害者方面（Field, Butler-Sloss, & Miller, 2019; Turner, Belcher, & Pona, 2019）。刑事司法制度与民事法定保障制度之间存在紧张关系，因此，尽管后者发现了受害的证据，但前者仍未能履行其保障义务，积极起诉潜在受害者。这些方法的不一致性存在于所有服务领域。法定保障服务如何应对的不确定性、通过刑事司法系统可能使受害者再次受害以及刑事司法系统对保障责任的忽视，表明可能存在对社会边缘化群体的普遍制度化歧视，这些群体因财富、权力和机会不平等而处于不利地位，并遭受医疗、教育、社会关怀和法律宣传方面的不平等。本研究旨在查明和审查在国内背景下触发和维持现代奴役复杂模式的受害者、加害者及其社会背景之间的关系动态；确定提供支持的障碍；并强调支持变革的干预措施。

The Modern Slavery Act (MSA) does not explicitly place a duty on the State to provide support to victims of modern slavery. Instead, the arrangements for identifying and supporting all victims of modern slavery, including British Nationals (BNs), are set out in guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 49 of the Act. However, the Statutory Guidance fails to acknowledge the fact that the needs as well as the entitlements of BN victims are different and require a different approach. In fact, what often happens is that BN victims are increasingly signposted towards local authorities for support, many of whom remain unaware of their responsibilities under the MSA. This abdication of responsibility is compounded by the failure to provide Local Authorities and first responders with resources, training or guidance in how to provide such services and support. In her recent report, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Dame Sara Thornton expressed her concerns about the lack of clarity on where the duty to safeguard BN victims lies between the Victim Care Contract (VCC) and statutory agencies. This is particularly problematic in relation to those that face prosecution for crimes they have been forced to commit. The Act provides a statutory defence (Section 45 MSA 2015) for those that have been forced, through modern slavery, to commit criminal offences. However, The implementation of the s45 defence has been consistently and aggressively resisted by the CPS who continue to seek to prosecute potential victims, often despite multi-agency evidence indicating that they are potential victims, with prosecution decisions often breaching their own guidance.Despite the statutory defence under s45 of the Act concerning those that have been forced to commit certain crimes, what constitutes "exploitation", and where criminal exploitation sits in relation to slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking is largely a matter of interpretation. There is no statutory definition of criminal exploitation i.e. it is not set out in law (Turner, Belcher, & Pona, 2019; Setter, Child Trafficking in the UK, 2019). Consequently, there is widespread inconsistency in how criminal exploitation might be defined and described not only in terms of what it is but also who might be a victim (Field, Butler-Sloss, & Miller, 2019; Turner, Belcher, & Pona, 2019). There is a tension between the Criminal Justice System and the Civil Statutory Safeguarding system as a result of which the former are failing to meet their safeguarding obligations by aggressively pursuing prosecutions of potential victims despite evidence of victimisation identified by the latter.These inconsistencies in approaches exist across all service areas. The uncertainty of how to respond in statutory safeguarding services, the potential re-victimisation of victims through the criminal justice system (CJS) and neglect within the CJS of safeguarding responsibilities, suggest that there may be widespread institutionalised discrimination against those in socially marginalised groups who are disadvantaged by inequality of wealth, power and opportunity and who suffer inequities of health care, education, social care and legal advocacy. This research intends to identify and examine the relational dynamics between victims, perpetrators and their social contexts that trigger and maintain complex patterns of modern slavery in the domestic context; to identify barriers to support; and to highlight interventions to support change.