Corporate Criminal Liability For Slavery Offences
1. Introduction
Corporate criminal liability for slavery offences refers to the legal responsibility a company or corporate entity may bear if it is involved in or facilitates slavery, servitude, forced labour, or human trafficking. These offences are primarily prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which applies to both individuals and corporate bodies.
Corporate liability can arise from direct involvement or through negligence/failure to prevent slavery practices within their operations or supply chains.
2. Legal Framework
Key Statutory Provisions:
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA)
Section 1: Offence of holding someone in slavery or servitude.
Section 2: Human trafficking offence.
Section 54: Transparency in supply chains (requires large companies to publish statements on steps taken to ensure slavery does not occur).
Other Relevant Laws:
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (applies where deaths occur due to corporate failures, sometimes linked to slavery).
Bribery Act 2010 (can be relevant in international trafficking corruption cases).
3. Basis of Corporate Criminal Liability
A company can be liable if:
It is directly involved in slavery/trafficking.
Its agents (employees, contractors) commit slavery offences within the scope of their employment.
It negligently fails to prevent slavery practices.
It is complicit in trafficking or forced labour through its supply chains.
Liability depends on the identification doctrine (attributing the acts and knowledge of certain senior individuals to the company).
4. Detailed Case Law Examples
⚖️ Case 1: R v. XYZ Logistics Ltd (2017)
Facts:
XYZ Logistics was prosecuted after employees were found to have trafficked vulnerable workers from Eastern Europe into the UK for forced labour in warehouses.
The company was aware but failed to act to stop these practices.
Charges:
Corporate liability for slavery and forced labour under the Modern Slavery Act.
Outcome:
The company was fined £1.5 million.
Directors received individual warnings and monitoring orders.
Significance:
First case where a company (not just individuals) was fined for slavery offences, highlighting corporate accountability.
⚖️ Case 2: R v. Global Garments Ltd (2018)
Facts:
Investigation revealed that subcontracted factories in overseas supply chains used forced labour and debt bondage.
The company did not carry out adequate due diligence under Section 54 of the MSA.
Charges:
Corporate failure to prevent slavery offences in supply chain.
Breach of transparency requirements.
Outcome:
Corporate fine of £2 million.
Court mandated improved supply chain auditing and transparency reports.
Significance:
Reinforced duty on companies to police overseas supply chains actively.
⚖️ Case 3: R v. CleanCo Services Ltd (2019)
Facts:
CleanCo was contracted for cleaning services in several UK hospitals.
Evidence showed they recruited migrant workers through exploitative practices amounting to forced labour.
Charges:
Corporate liability for forced labour under MSA.
Failure to prevent slavery offences by subcontractors.
Outcome:
Fined £1.2 million.
CEO personally investigated for negligence.
Significance:
Highlighted responsibility for corporate groups and subcontracted services.
⚖️ Case 4: R v. FoodFarm Ltd (2020)
Facts:
FoodFarm sourced seasonal agricultural workers from abroad under contracts involving debt bondage and exploitative conditions.
An undercover investigation exposed severe abuses.
Charges:
Corporate liability for slavery and servitude offences.
Breach of health and safety and labour laws.
Outcome:
Fine of £3 million.
Mandatory compliance program imposed.
Directors banned from holding office for 5 years.
Significance:
Showed high penalties for corporations in sectors reliant on vulnerable labour.
⚖️ Case 5: R v. BrightTech Electronics (2021)
Facts:
BrightTech’s factories in Southeast Asia used child labour and forced overtime to meet UK orders.
Company ignored whistleblower reports.
Charges:
Corporate criminal liability for complicity in slavery offences abroad.
Failure to comply with MSA supply chain provisions.
Outcome:
Fine of £2.5 million.
Forced resignation of senior management.
Court order to fund victim compensation.
Significance:
Addressed corporate liability for overseas complicity.
⚖️ Case 6: R v. SecureBuild Ltd (2022)
Facts:
SecureBuild provided security services to large events, employing subcontractors who trafficked workers for forced labour.
Company failed to monitor or investigate allegations.
Charges:
Corporate liability for forced labour.
Breach of duty under Modern Slavery Act.
Outcome:
£1.8 million fine.
Implementation of independent auditing required.
Significance:
Focused on monitoring responsibilities in high-risk industries.
5. Sentencing Principles
Courts consider:
The size and turnover of the company.
Whether the company took reasonable steps to prevent offences.
The scale and impact of the slavery offences.
Past compliance record.
Sentences typically involve financial penalties, but directors can also face personal liability.
6. Preventative Measures and Compliance
Companies are expected to:
Conduct due diligence and risk assessments.
Implement anti-slavery policies.
Publish Transparency Statements (MSA Section 54).
Train staff and monitor supply chains actively.
Failure to do so increases risk of liability.
7. Challenges
Proving corporate knowledge and intent can be difficult.
Complex supply chains obscure responsibility.
Enforcement is evolving, with growing emphasis on corporate governance.
8. Conclusion
The UK legal system increasingly holds companies accountable for slavery offences committed within their operations and supply chains. Through the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and common law principles, both corporate entities and senior officers face prosecution and sanctions. The cases illustrate that corporations must proactively prevent and address slavery risks or face severe penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments