Modern Slavery PEC partner workstream: reports and overall findings
This workstream, led by the Wilberforce Institute at the University of Hull, examined how the UK’s legal system enforces modern slavery offences and how justice outcomes can be improved for people with lived experience. The project investigated barriers to prosecution, conviction and remediation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The blog below, written by Principal Investigator Dr Alicia Heys, with Dr Bethany Darby and Dr Craig Barlow, sets out the overall findings from the project. One of the three project reports can be found below, with the second due later this week and the third due to be published by the end of September 2026.
This research was funded through the Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre, based at the University of Oxford, which seeks to improve the evidence base to support the development of effective policy on modern slavery.
Introduction
The Modern Slavery Act was introduced in 2015, but questions remain about how effectively the UK’s criminal justice system responds to modern slavery. Legislation provides mechanisms intended to prosecute and disrupt those responsible for exploitation, protect people who have been compelled to offend as a result of their exploitation, and support survivors through the criminal justice process. But having those mechanisms in place does not necessarily mean that they work as intended.
Our project, 'The Legal Enforcement of Modern Slavery', examined this picture through three interconnected workstrands.
We explored:
- Survivors’ experiences of engaging with the criminal justice system, and what survivors consider a successful criminal justice outcome;
- The use of Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders to manage and disrupt offending; and
- How the statutory defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act is operating.
We spoke to survivors and practitioners and examined existing evidence to understand not simply what the law says should happen, but what actually happens.
Survivors’ experiences of engaging with the criminal justice system
“Justice is not only in winning the cases… justice is not only in the paper… but also being treated as a human being, not as trash” (Survivor respondent)
In-depth interviews with 15 survivors showed that respondents experienced justice as a journey shaped by recognition, navigation and restoration, rather than simply the outcome of an investigation or prosecution.
Offending, immigration status and assumptions about credibility often obscure recognition of exploitation, particularly if survivors did not conform to expectations of a “credible” victim. As one survivor expressed: “Everyone is put in the perpetrator box immediately”. First contact with criminal justice professionals shaped subsequent trust, disclosure and engagement, with survivors describing periods of “silence” and uncertainty, repeatedly retelling their traumatic experiences, and fragmented communication. In contrast, trusted professionals and advocates could become vital relational lifelines, helping survivors feel safe, understood and able to remain engaged: “She used to talk to me as a person, not as a system”. Survivors’ definitions of justice extended beyond conviction and punishment, as they shared that being believed, achieving safety, rebuilding independence and seeing meaningful accountability all mattered.
These findings point to three priorities: recognising exploitation earlier; preventing avoidable harm throughout the criminal justice process; and making justice meaningful to survivors. Recommendations include improved first-contact screening and safeguarding, trauma-informed processes, stronger recognition of the ‘victim-offender’ overlap, better communication and continuity, and improved access to rebuilding and redress.
Ultimately, the findings show that meaningful justice depends not only on what the criminal justice system delivers, but on whether survivors are recognised, protected, treated respectfully, and supported to rebuild their lives throughout the journey.
The use of Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders
This workstrand sought to understand the use and effectiveness of these orders, introduced under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which can place restrictions on individuals who have committed, or are considered at risk of committing, slavery and trafficking offences. One police respondent described Risk Orders as providing “a buffer in case you can’t get the criminal prosecution over the line”.
Drawing on a review of existing evidence alongside interviews with 24 practitioners, we found that these orders are not yet being used to their full potential. Awareness and expertise were inconsistent, and their use could depend heavily on individual practitioners knowing these orders existed, understanding how to apply for them and having the capacity to pursue an application. Monitoring was similarly inconsistent, with one respondent noting that “each force is very different”. Concerns were also raised about unclear responsibilities and the absence of a standard process for sharing orders with organisations that might identify breaches.
At the same time, practitioners described significant benefits. Orders could disrupt offending, restrict contact with potential victims, interfere with criminal networks and provide protection beyond that available through prosecution and sentencing. Our recommendations therefore focus not on creating new powers, but on making better and more consistent use of those already available, through routine consideration, improved training, national data collection, safeguards for survivors, standardised monitoring and better information sharing.
The statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act
The statutory defence is intended to protect victims of exploitation from being criminalised for offences they were compelled to commit as a consequence of exploitation. Drawing on interviews with professionals, a literature review, and case law analysis, we found that its application is often hindered by legal and systemic barriers, alongside inconsistent professional practice and decision making.
A recurring finding was that a visible offence committed by a potential victim, such as drug supply, could be investigated and prosecuted while the exploitation behind it could be “completely missed altogether” (Police Detective Inspector).
Participants also described inconsistent interpretation of the defence, including the distinction between the tests applying to adults and children, and difficulties recognising coercion arising through “the accumulation of vulnerability through a long-term exploitation” (Defence Barrister) rather than immediate physical threats.
Specialist case-management panels were identified as a positive model for improving consistency in modern slavery cases. Participants also highlighted the importance of better information sharing between agencies and shared, case-based training for police, prosecutors and local authorities.
Our recommendations focus on ensuring that potential exploitation triggers appropriate safeguarding and investigation, improving consistency in the application of Section 45, strengthening multi-agency working, and embedding specialist oversight so that protection does not depend on individual knowledge or practice.
Conclusion
On paper, the UK’s legal and policy framework provides many of the mechanisms needed to support survivors, protect victims from criminalisation, disrupt exploitation and hold offenders to account. However, these mechanisms do not always translate effectively into practice.
Across our work, we often found good practice in pockets of excellence that depended on individual knowledge, experience and initiative rather than being embedded systematically across organisations and regions.
These findings point not simply to gaps in law or policy, but to a wider implementation challenge: ensuring that the protections, powers and processes that already exist are understood, applied and delivered consistently.
