Dr Anne-Marie Greenslade

This thesis examines the Modern Slavery survivor pathway from intervention to recovery and assesses the support systems available to survivors throughout this process. It also explores links to other traumatic crimes and investigates how the role of “witness” in the criminal justice system impacts survivors’ experiences. The work showcases findings from interviews with frontline practitioners alongside analysis of Government publications and independent reports.  This research builds on existing literature and draws on a range of sources to develop a broad and detailed picture of the survivor support system in the UK. Against this backdrop, the thesis offers a unique perspective based on the experiences of frontline practitioners within the survivor support system and provides a holistic contribution to the current body of work in this field.  This thesis posits that the current Modern Slavery legal framework is failing survivors of this horrific crime. The UK Government is falling short of its commitment to protect and support survivors and much of the financial cost of support is subsidised through the voluntary sector’s own fundraising efforts. Combined with a greater Governmental focus on immigration enforcement, many survivors end up homeless or in immigration detention. Poor monitoring and communication practices mean that many survivor outcomes are not known at all.  The findings emphasise the importance of holistic care pathways with a consistent, benchmark standard of support across all services, including advocacy for each individual. The thesis further argues that the UK Government needs to extend its anti-slavery efforts towards long-term support and understanding of survivor needs, which should include a focus on survivor narratives and input. This would not only improve recovery outcomes but would advance the criminal justice process in this area through witness retention and stronger evidence.

Modern slavery has achieved growing prominence in UK political and legal priorities. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) makes provisions for survivor support, which has primarily been provided by third sector organisations. Many of these organisations operate under government contracts, with a significant number of smaller agencies providing services through charitable funding. This research is concerned with the experiences of those at the forefront of survivor services, both providers and recipients of care. It also explores links to the experiences of victims of other traumatic crimes, for example, rape and domestic abuse, and how their role as witness in the criminal justice system impacts their overall experience.

Modern slavery has achieved growing prominence in UK political and legal priorities. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) makes provisions for survivor support, which has primarily been provided by third-sector organisations. Many of these organisations operate under government contracts, with a significant number of smaller agencies providing services through charitable funding. This research is concerned with the experiences of those at the forefront of survivor services, both providers and recipients of care. It also explores links to the experiences of victims of other traumatic crimes, for example, rape and domestic abuse, and how their role as witness in the criminal justice system impacts their overall experience.

PhD research presentation at SLS conference Research questions: - What is the current known status of trafficking and slavery in the UK? - How do organisations structure their support systems? - How can the survivor experience be improved?

This book presents a critical chronology of the modern slavery survivor journey in the UK, from intervention by the authorities to long-term recovery.

This chapter revolves around modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT) aftercare systems, drawing on the voices of frontline practitioners and survivors, in the UK and beyond. Our aim is to highlight where key aspects of aftercare systems become challenges and compromises for survivors. To frame the tortuous experience of survivors navigating the ambivalent terrains of the system, we hold onto the concept of ‘subjection’. As the ‘process of becoming subordinated by power’ and ‘becoming a subject’, subjection is a useful tool to capture the continuous negotiations survivors have to engage in with aftercare systems.

This research paper examines the significance of the judges in the problem-solving courts of England and Wales’s Choices and Consequences (C2) and Prolific Intensive (PI) programmes using the lenses and language of therapeutic jurisprudence. These unique schemes mobilise an intensive combination of strict control measures (with a view to deterring people from reoffending) alongside a personalised package of rehabilitative support overseen by a judge in a problem-solving court. Our findings strongly indicate that the judge-led problem-solving court is the bedrock of the schemes. Acknowledging that this practice relies upon strong leadership from a judge as a community convener with the authority and profile to initiate and sustain the programme, this paper identifies the strengths and barriers that this finding may pose. Our data also points to the difficulties of achieving support for the model at all judicial levels. Readiness (or lack of) within judges in the future could hamper the prospects of both current and new schemes. Moreover, finding a judge with a susceptible personality lowers chances. The authors conclude that the UK’s current punitive, rapid results ethos of the justice system is not working. The international problem-solving court movement has shown that long-term success often ensues when practices are embedded into a broader culture of rehabilitative justice supported by visible communities. By tapping into the broader international community, the key will be a changing cultural process to make keen and compatible judges easier to come by.