Trafficking of women... by mistake!

I wish to refer to the letter entitled Prostitution Case Judgement by Paul Miruzzi (March 17) in reply to my Talking Point headed Sexual Exploitation (March 15).

While appreciating the clarification by the Registrar of the Criminal Courts and Tribunals, explaining the reasons why the man was acquitted of the charges of trafficking of human beings (which were not included in the reports in the local newspapers), I would like to comment on important elements that have emerged from this clarification.

After checking the actual judgment online, as advised, and also checking the sections in the Criminal Code regarding the case where a man was charged on two counts - trafficking of women for sexual exploitation and prostitution - it was revealed that there was a serious mistake, as reference was not made to the article of the Criminal Code that specifically deals with trafficking of women for prostitution (248B) and on these grounds the man was acquitted of the charge of trafficking.

In the case brought before the Magistrates' Court, although the prosecution had charged the man of trafficking for sexual exploitation there was no reference to article 248B.

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Attorney General also did not refer to article 248B of the Criminal Code that specifically covers trafficking of women for sexual exploitation. I quote: "Whosoever, by any means mentioned in article 248A(2), trafficks a person of age for the purpose of exploiting that person in prostitution or in pornographic performances or in the production of pornographic material shall, on conviction, be liable to the punishment laid down in article 248A(1)". This specifically deals with trafficking of human beings for prostitution etc.

The Attorney General only referred to article 248A(1). Again I quote: "Whosoever, by any means mentioned in subarticle (2), trafficks a person of age for the purpose of exploiting that person in the production of goods or provision of services shall, on conviction, be liable to the punishment of imprisonment for a term from two to nine years.

For the purposes of this subarticle, exploitation includes requiring a person to produce goods and provide services under conditions and in circumstances which infringe labour standards governing working conditions, salaries and health and safety". (Article 248A speaks only of crimes in connection with labour laws governing conditions of work etc and it is article 248E which gives a definition of trafficking.)

As a result of this mistake, the crime of trafficking of women for sexual exploitation failed to be effectively and justly dealt with. To be acquitted of such a crime because reference to the wrong article of the Criminal Code was made calls for serious reflection as it makes the situation worse than if the reason had been lack of evidence.

The issue remains the same: Trafficking of human beings for sexual exploitation is a serious crime, linked to organised international crime and it is the responsibility of the courts of law and the police to ensure that all measures are taken to curb this form of white slavery.