Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 1 — A person commits an offence by holding another in slavery or servitude, or requiring forced or compulsory labour, while knowing or ought to know that this is occurring. Article 4 informs construction; circumstances include vulnerability and illness; consent does not preclude the finding. Official source
9.1 Elements and application
| Element | Question for this case | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct | Was the case-study adult required to work or provide services? | Tasks, hours, instructions, benefit obtained. |
| Compulsion | What penalty, threat or serious consequence followed refusal? | Messages, witnesses, dependency on essential care. |
| Vulnerability | Was disability or care dependence deliberately exploited? | Assessments, medical evidence, accused person’s knowledge. |
| Control | Could he realistically leave or refuse? | Access to money, housing, communication and alternative care. |
| Mental element | Did the suspect know, or ought the suspect to have known, of the condition? | Warnings, visible distress, repeated objections. |
| Nexus | How did the labour connect to promised or withheld care? | Chronology, agreements, records and admissions. |
9.2 Domestic servitude by analogy
European human-rights authority recognises that live-in care work can, on sufficiently coercive facts, amount to domestic servitude or forced labour. The analogy is useful because care relationships may conceal work and dependency. It does not decide this case. The legal classification depends on the intensity and duration of control and coercion.
C.N. v United Kingdom (2012) — The European Court found an Article 4 violation concerning the state’s response to an allegation of domestic servitude by a live-in carer; the case illustrates the need for an effective framework and investigation. Official source
9.3 Counterarguments
A serious book states these counterarguments because a credible legal claim must be capable of surviving them.