2026] WLR(D) 179
Court of Appeal
Rex v Webb (George) and another
[2025] EWCA Crim 1491
2025 Nov 5; 19
Edis LJ, Griffiths, Sweeting JJ
Crime— Modern slavery— Holding a person in slavery or servitude— Defendants coercing and controlling disabled victim into providing them with employment and housing— Victim providing no work or services to defendants— Whether offence of holding person in slavery or servitude established— Whether open to jury to convict if not satisfied slavery established but satisfied of servitude— Whether single offence committed in two different ways or two separate offences— Whether deprivation of personal autonomy required for conviction for slavery— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 3, Sch 1, Pt 1, art 4 — Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c 30), ss 1(1)(a)(2), 3(1)(5)(6)
The victim, who suffered from cerebral palsy, needed substantial physical care and assistance and employed a carer, the first defendant, who, without his knowledge, began an affair with his wife, the second defendant. It was the Crown’s case that the defendants actively coerced and controlled the victim, separating him from his family and making him report back to the care agency and social services that the defendant carer was doing his job competently when instead the victim was being held in servitude or slavery. The victim had not provided work for the defendants but had been coerced into enabling the defendant carer to keep his job and income when he was failing in his duties as a carer and behaving abusively to him over a 2½ year period with the result that he provided a home to both defendants, further resources to his defendant wife, and they used his resources to fund their lifestyle. The Crown contended that because the victim was enslaved, the defendants could enjoy their way of life and if he had been free to decide for himself who to employ as his carer he would have dispensed with the first defendant’s services. The defendants were charged, inter alia, with holding a person in slavery or servitude contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (count 1) and both denied coercing the victim into providing employment for the first defendant and housing and money to them. The judge refused their submission of no case to answer at the close of the Crown’s case at trial that there was insufficient evidence to prove the deprivation of personal autonomy required for slavery or the obligation to provide services under coercion required for servitude to go to the jury. After hearing argument as to how the jury should be directed the judge directed them, inter alia, that it would be open to them to convict if they were not satisfied the Crown had established slavery but were sure they had established servitude and provided the Brown direction requested by defence counsel after he rejected their argument that the allegation of holding in slavery should appear in a separate count from the allegation of holding in servitude. The defendants were convicted and appealed against conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence to found the conviction on count 1 and the judge having wrongly directed the jury in relation to slavery or servitude.

Siliadin v France (2005) 43 EHRR 16, ECtHR and R v K (S) [2013] QB 82, CA considered.
Per curiam. The authors of the Crown Court Compendium may wish to consider how to frame the question as to the meaning of slavery for the jury. Two formulations of the general principle for consideration are: (i) are you sure that the defendant exercised power over the victim, as one might as an owner, which deprived him of the exercise of his free will as a person in his own right? (ii) are you sure that the defendant made the victim his slave, that is, stopped him being a person in his own right by exercising coercive power over him, treating him as if he owned him? (para 96.)