Would Epstein victims have been denied help after these changes?

03:27 |

If someone forwarded you this email you can subscribe.

A faster, cleaner openDemocracy is on the way.

Over the next few weeks, you'll notice some exciting changes to our website and the newsletters landing in your inbox.

As a reader-funded newsroom, we are always looking for ways to improve how we deliver our journalism to you. We are upgrading our platforms to give you a faster, cleaner reading experience that makes it easier to read, share, and support the investigations that matter.

While we make the switch, things might look a little different, but our commitment to fearless, independent reporting remains exactly the same.

If you spot a glitch or have any questions during the transition, our inbox is always open: supporters@opendemocracy.net

Hi Cintila,

Due to immigration law changes introduced by the previous UK government, victims of sex trafficking offences similar to those committed by Jeffrey Epstein could be denied help under the UK's modern slavery system.

Experts fear that certain policy changes mean victims will struggle to get the support they need.

FEATURED STORY

Would Epstein victims have been denied help after changes to UK slavery system?

Sian Norris

Survivors of sex trafficking offences similar to those committed by Jeffrey Epstein may be refused support under the UK's modern slavery system due to immigration law changes introduced by the previous government, experts have warned.

Sara* was trafficked around the UK and sexually exploited in her teens and into adulthood, in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Over the years, she told openDemocracy, "different groups of perpetrators were involved at different time periods."

When Sara was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – the system designed to identify and support victims and survivors of modern slavery – the Home Office asked her to produce extensive evidence of her exploitation and take part in interviews totalling many hours.

Gathering the required information was challenging, Sara said, "as much of the abuse occurred in circumstances where I had little control, and there was limited documentation or tangible proof available to me." She added that it "was extremely difficult to provide specific dates and timelines" for abuse that took place repeatedly over many years.

SUPPORT OUR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

When I saw that the UK government had seconded an official to work with Rothschild & Co on defence policy, all paid for by you and me, I knew this was something I had to look into. The revolving door between government, private finance and lobbying firms needs to be exposed if we are to understand how money and power work in our politics. Nowhere is this more urgent than on questions of defence and national security, at a time when the government is investing more and more of taxpayers' money on rearming Britain.

You can help keep me on this beat, as I dig into the contracts and cosy relationships between Labour, defence, and big finance. Will you donate to support my work today?

Please donate now

"There were also times when drugs and alcohol were involved as part of the exploitation, which has affected my memory of certain incidents. This has made it even harder to recall precise details, despite my efforts to cooperate fully."

Sara's experience comes after the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, introduced by former Conservative home secretary Priti Patel, raised the evidence threshold for victims/survivors to get a "reasonable grounds" decision under the NRM.

Such a ruling recognises there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is at risk of modern slavery. It entitles them to some level of support, such as safe housing, counselling, advice and information, while they await a "conclusive grounds" decision that can lead to them being formally recognised as a victim by the UK government.

But decision-makers assessing at the reasonable grounds level can no longer rely on a victim/survivor's personal testimony. Instead, they must "expect further evidence", such as medical records or travel documents.

Those victims/survivors unable to produce the required evidence risk returning to exploitative situations. Some will later be referred back to the NRM, having experienced further harm.

"Every survivor of human trafficking should be met with support, not suspicion, when they come forward," said Maya Esslemont, director of After Exploitation. "Yet, due to changes in UK law and guidance, survivors are being saddled with increasingly heavy evidence burdens which are often impossible to meet.

"In turn, the many survivors who are not officially 'recognised' as victims go without support from the Home Office's fund for survivors. The impact of being disbelieved is not only practically harmful, it also damages recovery by confirming survivors' worst fears around not being believed."

The number of survivors receiving a positive reasonable grounds decision halved in the year after the Nationality and Borders Act was passed, falling from 84% to 55%. Last year, more than half of modern slavery survivors (5,448 people) were rejected at the reasonable grounds stage, including a third of adult and child survivors of sexual exploitation.

Justifying the policy change, the former government argued that a rise in referrals to the NRM showed that the modern slavery system was being 'abused' by bogus claims. The Office for Statistics Regulation later found there was no available data to suggest misuse.

For those who are recognised as victims at both reasonable and conclusive grounds stages, further advocacy is needed to secure access to support. "Even for the minority of survivors able to overcome all the hurdles needed to be recognised as a victim by the Home Office, the support is not guaranteed," said Esslemont.

Is MAGA a religion? Why has protest been criminalised in England and Wales? Who is profiting from anti-immigration sentiment? And how can we engage with young men who've fallen down the alt-right pipeline?

These are just a few of the questions that we've put to leading thinkers, frontline activists, and global experts on our new podcast, In Solidarity, over the past six months.

In Solidarity is a podcast for people who understand that politics doesn't just happen in the halls of power. Every show, we tackle a new theme to uncover how authoritarianism spreads, who is benefiting from fear, and how solidarity is evolving into resistance movements around the world.

To ensure you never miss an episode of In Solidarity, subscribe to get an email notification whenever a new one is released.

Subscribe to episode notifications

"Survivors still need to prove that support is 'necessary' to their recovery before they can access their right to basic support like counselling or safe housing. We know that a lower percentage of survivors are now accessing counselling compared to four years ago."

Do survivors of traffickers like Epstein fit the framework?

As well as the increased evidence threshold, the government now requires decision-makers to use a framework – introduced in May 2024 – to consider "whether an individual is more or less likely to be a victim of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation".

The framework says a person is more likely to be a victim if there were multiple sexual offences involving one or more offenders over an extended period; if there is "evidence of previous criminality by the perpetrator or other victims with the same perpetrator"; if there is evidence of grooming; and if the perpetrator has profited in some way from the abuse.

This rigid framework, campaigners argue, fails to grasp the complexities of the crime and puts more burden on the victims to provide evidence they may simply not have access to. It risks missing victims of abusers such as billionaire US financier Jeffrey Epstein, who trafficked and abused hundreds of girls and women with almost total impunity for decades.

Epstein's victims, for example, may not have been able to identify the complex ways in which he profited from the abuse. Similarly, those he abused in the 1990s and early 2000s may have struggled to prove trafficking, as Epstein had no criminal convictions at the time (he later served a brief prison sentence in 2008 for soliciting a minor). Had the first victim who came forward to report Epstein in 1996 been subject to the Home Office's current framework, she would likely have struggled to prove she had been a victim.

Grooming played a significant role in Epstein's offending, but it is not present in every sex trafficking case, such as when victims have come to the UK legally for work, only to be sexually exploited. Traffickers use a range of tactics, including kidnapping and use of force, without necessarily relying on grooming.

"Modern slavery is a complex and often hidden phenomenon, which can take many different forms, with sometimes multiple forms of exploitation happening at once," said Eleonora Fais, Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group coordinator. "This is why clear definitions which are consistent with international frameworks are essential to support and strengthen identification efforts.

"When we frame forms of exploitation within very narrow criteria, like in the case of the sexual exploitation framework, this can create assumptions and stereotypes about what modern slavery should look like.

"This can limit professionals' understanding of slavery and trafficking, and result in many people not being identified at all or being turned away from identification and support. Ultimately, this can lead to people remaining trapped in exploitation or being at risk of re-trafficking."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "Modern slavery is a global scourge that abuses and exploits people for profit. We are committed to reviewing the modern slavery system to reduce opportunities for misuse of the system, whilst also ensuring that we have the right protections for those who need it.

"The proportion of positive decisions, both on Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds, has risen in the past year."