AC-2023-LON-001835 - [2025] EWHC 2770 (Admin)

contrary to s.2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the period after that Act came into effect and

before then, contrary to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The Warrant pleads Mr Beraru supported an OCG established “for the purpose of committing human trafficking offences”.

The Further Information alleges that women practising prostitution in the UK “were recruited mainly from Romania”, and that “some of the women” from whom the OCG derived material benefits by acting as pimps “were taken from Romania and brought to the UK”. Having described the purpose of the OCG in this way, it was noted that “certain Defendants” had obtained material benefits through the exploitation of women including Mr Beraru.

When specifically asked by the CPS “did Mr Beraru’s actions as a member of the [OCG] take place all in the UK?”, the Further Information provides “there are informative data in the UK according to which Mr Beraru was a trusted person of the leader and that he carried out criminal activities specific to pimping consisting in recruiting young women from Romania whom he forced into practising prostitution for his own material benefit and that of the crime group leader”. I do not accept that this was mere narrative. In the context of the earlier statements about the OCG’s purposes, and as a response to a question about where Mr Beraru’s actions as a member of the OCG took place, I am satisfied that this provides details of the criminal conduct which forms the basis of the Warrant.

I accept that if the sole issue was whether Mr Beraru had himself facilitated the trafficking of women from Romania to the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation, the Warrant and Further Information neither state nor necessarily imply such facts. The reference to “recruiting young women from Romania” is capable of meaning recruiting Romanian women already in the UK, and the Respondent was specifically asked if it was being alleged that Mr Beraru was involved in smuggling people from Romania for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and no answer was given.

However, the Further Information does allege Mr Beraru’s participation in an OCG which recruited women, inter alia, in Romania for the purpose of sexual exploitation in the UK and in an OCG formed for the purpose of human trafficking.

An interesting point was raised as to whether the “mirroring” requirement of ss.64(4) and 137(4) of the Act, as discussed in El-Khouri, extends to the references to the defendant’s nationality in ss.2(6) (“a person who is a UK national”) and (7) (“a person who is not a UK national”). The question of whether the “transposition requirement” extends to elements of a crime defined by reference to the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, rather than the geographic location of the conduct, is an interesting one. I note that in Taylor v Public Prosecutors’ Office, Berlin, Germany [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin), it was held that the transposition exercise extended to the nationality element in s.7 of the Sexual Offences Act 1997.

So far as s.2(7) is concerned, the geographic requirement, appropriately transposed, is that “any part of arranging or facilitating takes place” in [Romania] or “if the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from or travel within” [Romania]. This requirement would have been satisfied by the Warrant and Further Information. The purpose of the OCG of which Mr Beraru is alleged to be a supporter involved human trafficking of women from Romania to England, including recruitment of women in Romania. While there is no sufficient allegation of Mr Beraru undertaking such actions in Romania, there is a clear allegation that he was a supporter of an OCG with such a purpose, and which did indeed recruit women in Romania for the purpose of sexually exploiting them in Britain, with some of those women being “taken” from Romania.

Once again I am satisfied that the Warrant and Further Information fairly read do allege an agreed course of conduct which would at some stage involve an act by one or more of the parties or the happening of an event intended to take place in a country outside Romania (s.1A(2(a)), and that this is not merely an inference which is capable of being drawn but is the inference which should be drawn. The clear impact of the Warrant and Further Information is that Mr Beraru was a member and supporter of an OCG whose purpose was the human trafficking of women, including from Romania to the UK, for the purpose of their sexual exploitation in the UK (i.e. outside Romania).

The Warrant and Further Information allege that a party to the agreement did or omitted anything in Romania pursuant to the agreement, namely the recruitment of women there and taking them to the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation.