Title V.C.L. and A.N. v. The United Kingdom (applications nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12)
Publisher Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
Publication Date 16 February 2021
Country United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | Viet Nam
Topics Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking | Trafficking in persons
Citation / Document Symbol ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216JUD007758712
Other Languages / Attachments Press Release
Cite as V.C.L. and A.N. v. The United Kingdom (applications nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12), ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216JUD007758712, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 16 February 2021, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,603695074.html [accessed 17 May 2023]
Comments The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.