Why Is The Government Appealing The Decision To Protect Women Criminalized As A Result Of Sexual Exploitation?

The government has given notice that it intends to appeal a High Court actionprotecting victims of sexual exploitation as children, who were convicted of criminal offences linked to their abuse, from having to disclose them when applying for jobs. The appeal will challenge a decision made by the High Court last year, outlining the right for three women who were victims of sexual grooming to not have to disclose criminal records linked to their exploitation to employers.

What does this mean? Well, in cases similar to the Rotherham grooming scandal (where as many as possibly 1,400 children in Rotherham and Rochdale were the victims of abuse between 1997 and 2013 and systemically groomed by a pedophile ring) it would mean that –despite the women involved in the offences being children at the time – that they would still have to disclose them as part of a criminal record history to potential employers.

It is still the law, even if a person has committed criminal offences as a result of being sexually exploited, trafficked or groomed as a child (for example, soliciting sex), that they are required to disclose their criminal history when applying for jobs. They are also required to disclose any past criminal records when applying for certain activities or volunteering positions involving children or vulnerable adults.

Sometimes, victims of the sex trade carry criminal records even when their abusers do not. In short, as a by-product of legislation, survivors of sex abuse are being treated as though they were criminals of their own free will when we know that this is, almost endemically, not the case.

'Sammy's Law', a campaign led by Sammy Woodhouse who was sexually exploited in Rotherham as a 14-year-old aims to combat this by calling for victims of child grooming to be expunged of criminal records. Many believe we still have an institutionalised problem with victim-blaming in these instances - and continue to deny legal protection to those who need it the most. Why is it that we are adding the blow to women who have already suffered unthinkable abuse of treating them as criminals in the eyes of the law?

Vera Baird, a former barrister, justice minister and government secretary general said 'They [victims of coercian and sexual abuse] had, in a sense, no choice. It’s almost like a gun to the head. They have to do what the person tells them; they know no other way. They are quite enslaved. That is a clear principle: you shouldn’t be responsible for something that you couldn’t not do because of the position you were in.'

Last year, in March 2018 three claimants (including a Ms. Broadfoot, who was trafficked 35 years ago) successfully won a High Court battle arguing that they should not have to disclose decades-old criminal convictions linked to their sexual exploitation as children, when applying for jobs. Meanwhile their lawyer, Harriet Wistrich said that as survivors of sex abuse, grooming and trafficking that they 'should never have been criminalised in the first place'.

At the time of the ruling, the three claimants successfully argued that having to disclose convictions for working in the sex trade was a breach of their Article 8 human rights - the right to privacy. Incredibly though, the case was not won on the grounds that they were fundamentally exploited. Ms Wistrich said 'Unfortunately, the courts were not persuaded by our argument that the practice discriminates against women or is in breach of duties with regard to trafficked women,' she said. 'We will be seeking permission to appeal in relation to those broader points.'

However, The Times reported today that the government has now said that it intends to appeal against the ruling, though as yet it's unclear as to why this decision has been made. A spokesperson from the Home Office said 'The government wants to ensure that all victims and survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation feel that they can come forward to report abuse, and that they get the support they need when they do.' They refused to comment when asked for clarification on why the Home Office will appeal against the court's ruling.

Speaking to The Times, Ms. Broadfoot said 'The men who bought me never got arrested for raping a vulnerable child, but I still have to declare my convictions? The Home Office need to hang their heads in shame.'

In response to a request for further comment, the Home Office have also said 'Minister Victoria Atkins met Ms Woodhouse to discuss her experiences and what more can be done to help victims and survivors of exploitation.' Ms. Woodhouse said that while she met with Victoria Atkins, the government has since 'done nothing' to address her concerns. A spokesperson for the Home Office also stated, 'We are committed to working across Government to ensure these people are able to move on from the abuse they have suffered, including those with criminal convictions or cautions.'