The United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act which came into being on October 29, 2015 is a piece of complex legislation. The Act is an attempt to domesticate by way of bringing home The Palermo Protocol into the UK jurisprudence. The Palermo Protocol is a UN Convention to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking of vulnerable persons. The protocol supplemented the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (TOC).
Human trafficking, conspiracy and organ harvesting charge under the Modern Slavery
Act, 2015 section 2 is Sui generis – a special case of its own kind. For this reason, it involves other UK agencies- Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Vulnerable Persons Team. These three agencies jointly have the responsibility for investigating, evidence gathering and providing advice and guidance to Crown Prosecution in making sure that the correct charge(s) is identified.
On the July 7 hearing, the prosecution informed the Westminster Magistrate Court that from the information they elicited from the Ekweremadus’ cell phones, they have enough cogent and compelling evidence to bring about a conviction.
As it were, the Crown Prosecution must consider the defense argument on how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. As a practice, any case which does not pass the evidential stage test cannot proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive the perceived offence may be. The essence of these mechanisms is to make sure the Crown Prosecution does not waste the court and jury’s time. The Crown Court trials cost about £150 per minute (equivalent to N113,000). Twenty minutes Old Bailey’s court session will cost the UK taxpayers in the region of £3,000.00.
As a rule and policy, before the Crown Prosecution can charge any suspect, there must be a realistic prospect of conviction. The evidence must be compelling and beyond reasonable doubt. At the Westminster Magistrate the Crown Prosecution boldly informed the court that given the information obtained from the Ekweremadus mobile phones, he is very sure of conviction.
In silence I recited the prayer: Mea culpa mea maxima culpa; an expression of what is left of my Catholic belief. The audacity and certainty of the Crown Prosecution made me mentalise on the nature and quantum of evidence extracted culminating to the conspiracy charges.
To the issues. The subject, Ukpo Nwamini David, had admitted that he lied about his age; he is not a minor aged 15 but 21 years old. The effect of this confession is that David is not a person of good character. His is not a credible witness and as such cannot be believed. David’s credibility will substantially and materially be a contestable issue at the Crown Court. David will no longer enjoy anonymity. He will have to appear in court unless the Crown Prosecution is able to demonstrate that David is fearful to give evidence in person and that he is at risk under sections 88 and 89 respectively of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. David’s initial age 15 and later 21 did not categorically vitiate the conspiracy charges against the defendants.
Max and Keira’s Law – The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2020, exempted all visitors to England from organ donation irrespective of age. By law, the donor’s family is involved in the consent process before David’s organ is harvested. Clinicians will never proceed with the procedure without evidence of consent from the donor’s family. We are yet to be informed whether David’s family consented. Persons who lack the mental capacity to understand the new organ donor arrangements and to take necessary action are also exempted from organ donation. To assist the jury in making an informed verdict, it is likely David’s specific mental capacity in this area will have to be assessed. It is exciting to see how the Crown Prosecution and defendants will navigate through the legal webs in this case.
The legal ingenuity of both the Crown prosecution and defence lawyers will significantly determine how the jury will be persuaded to think in returning their guilty or not guilty verdict.
Remember, it is not the office of the judge to convict but the jury. The judge is a facilitator directing the jury on issues of law. When this happens, the defendants will step out of the court for the judge to give legal directions to the jury.
Issues for determination before the jury: Whether at all material times Ike and Beatrice Ekweremadu intended (mens rea) to exploit David? For the jury to arrive at the intention of the suspects, consideration will be given as to whether David was at all material times coerced, induced, deceived, manipulated into the UK for the purpose of his kidney being harvested to the advantage of Sonia – daughter of the Ekweremadus.
Another tranche of intention exemption is: Did the Ekweremadus intend to commit a criminal act given that in Ike Ekweremadu’s letter to the British High Commission in Abuja, he disclosed the purpose of David’s travel to the UK? Why did the British High Commission not inform him or refuse the visa? Can it be said that the British High Commission lured and induced them into committing the offense as charged? Can entrapment be adduced?
In English law, entrapment is not a substantive defence available to the defendant. It is however considered to be an abuse of the court process for government agents to lure persons into committing illegal act and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. In R v Sang [1980] AC 402, a criminal offense does not cease to be a criminal offense just because the defendant has been incited, induced, and lured into committing the offense as charged. The jury will be inundated with English law and principles leading to this case.
Before and after David withdrew his consent, did the Ekweremadus isolate him from making contact with outside world or hold him in captivity? The fact of David’s escape to lodge a complaint at the police will be explored and any other conditions of his existence in the UK. Surrounding clues whether David’s passport was withheld by the suspects will be another significant factor to infer exploitation, coercion, slavery and servitude.
null
Furthermore, since conspiracy is an offense of agreement or meeting of defendants’ minds, the court will direct the jury to consider whether there was a meeting of minds between Ike, Beatrice and their agents to commit an offense of organ harvesting (albeit inchoate). It is an established English law principle and it is irrelevant or immaterial that the defendants failed or did not carry out the planned agreement as seen in decided cases: O’Connell v. R. (1844) 5 St.Tr.(N.S.), R. v. Aspinall (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 48. and R. v. Bolton, 94 Cr. App .R. 74, CA et cetera.
On the contrary and upholding the same English principle of law, husband and wife are not guilty of conspiracy if they are the only parties to the agreement. The court will direct the jury to acquit Ike and Beatrice Ekweremadu, if the jury is satisfied that there are no other parties or agents involved in the conspiracy. The ruling in R v Lovick [1993] Crim.L.R 890, CA, will prevail.
Be that as it may, in R v Chrastny 94 Cr.App.R. 283, CA a wife may conspire with her husband contrary to s.1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 if, she is aware that her husband was involved with other agents in a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act and she agreed with her husband to join that conspiracy, notwithstanding that the only person with whom she concluded the agreement was her husband.
The above complexities, technicalities and interactions of English law principles on
conspiracy will mean that the jury has an onerous verdict to make and as such would need to up-skill their cognitive attainment. Based on the forgoing, the Crown Prosecution may amend their charges to engage Human Organ Transplants Act, 1989, section 1 (a-d) that is, commercialisation of organs against persons who are not genetically related.
Credit : THE NATION.
