Drug and knife charges discontinued against 15-year-old modern slavery victim
Louise’s client was prosecuted and imprisoned by the very same system that failed to safeguard him. The child had been struggling to process bereavement and trauma and had developed a substance abuse addiction as a result. He racked up a drug debt with a violent gang who then forced him to work as a runner for Class A drugs. After a year of representations and legal arguments about abuse of process and disclosure, the Crown finally acknowledged that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and discontinued the proceedings.
Whilst Louise’s client was grieving the loss of his father and trying to process domestic abuse traumas, he had been taken into care and separated from his siblings as his mother was struggling with substance abuse issues. When in care, the boy had become involved in criminality (none drug-related), and had been in and out of youth offender institutions and placements. In the summer of 2024, social services could not find a suitable placement so the boy was placed back with his mother. In the youth court hearing where this decision was made, not a single party was informed about the risk that his mother still had substance abuse issues. This occurred despite it being well-known that the boy had severe addictions, was vulnerable to modern slavery due to various recent missing episodes, and needed a stable environment and protection from bad influences.
In hindsight unsurprisingly, within a couple of months, he was groomed by a local gang and forced to work as a drug runner in debt bondage. He was arrested with a knife and Class A drugs on him. He was bailed on a curfew of 16 hours per day, which effectively imprisoned him in his own house for the last year.
What ensued was a year-long legal battle for disclosure and common sense. It soon came to light that another 15-year-old boy, who had been forced to do the exact same tasks by the same exploiter, had immediately been classified as a victim of modern slavery, but that Louise’s client had to stand trial as his exploiter’s co-defendant. Moreover, the Crown consistently refused to provide pertinent disclosure about the dangerousness of the gang. For example, the defence found out by chance that an Osman warning had been received that a 10k hit was out to kill the other 15-year-old for speaking to the police. Meanwhile, the Crown insisted on proceeding with the prosecution and a judge rejected an abuse of process argument.
The boy’s family had informed the police about gang members showing up at the house looking for the boy. His social worker had written to the court about how the boy had been intimidated in court by family members of his co-defendant. Yet, the Crown not only continued their prosecution, they also failed to approach the case with the required care. At least three hearings were scheduled to argue that they should provide disclosure about his exploitation, and all those hearings were ineffective because the Crown was unprepared.
Every social services record which was unearthed, revealed more concerning material about exploitation and failures to safeguard the boy. Only after a year of legal battles, and the boy being on extremely stringent bail conditions, the Crown admitted that their position was evidentially untenable and discontinued the proceedings in relation to the drugs. It took another month, legal argument, and a DJ expressing his views in clear words, for the Crown to discontinue the bladed article charge.
Louise Willocx was instructed by Tricia O’Sullivan and Isabelle Chandler from Sperrin Law.
