TEL : 07988 360291 
From an original article by Craig Barlow 31 August 2016 
 
Father and son Ioan Berlan, 47, and Reni Parczewski, 25, worked a pregnant woman as their house servant after offering her accommodation at a house in Tottenham, North London. Southwark Crown Court heard how the Polish woman was threatened with 'grave consequences' if she failed to keep the home spotless. The victim's statement described how she was treated as "a toy" by a 5 year-old child in the home. A neglected aspect of such cases is the impact upon children who are exposed to domestic servitude in addition to the direct victims. 
Domestic Servitude has some specific characteristics that set it apart from other forms of forced labour.The perpetrators are often singletons or a couple and the exploitation occurs within a family context. Facilitators may include intermediaries such as employment agencies, friends or family of the end user and / or the victim in the source country or destination country. Much of the logistics may well be co-ordinated by the end user. 
 
By nature it is often a form of exploitation that is occurring within a family home. As a consequence, a part of the forced labour may involve the victim undertaking duties to children such as basic care, cooking, school run etc. 

Relevance to Safeguarding Children 

Emotional abuse is the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child’s emotional development. It may involve seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another, causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children.. 
There is increasing evidence of the adverse long-term consequences for children’s development where they have been subject to sustained emotional abuse. It has an important impact on the development of the child’s mental health, behaviour and self-esteem. Emotional abuse can be especially damaging in infancy. Underlying emotional abuse may be as important, if not more so, as other more visible forms of abuse with regard to its impact upon the child. 
As adults, children who have witnessed violence and abuse are more likely to become involved in a violent and abusive relationship themselves. Children tend to copy the behaviour of their parents. Boys learn from their fathers to be violent to women. Girls learn from their mothers that violence is to be expected, and something you just have to put up with. This was a worrying aspect of the abuse in cases of domestic servitude where such statements are often made by adults to or about the victim and colluded with, or supported by other family members 
However, children don't always repeat the same pattern when they grow up. Many children don't like what they see, and try very hard not to make the same mistakes as their parents. Even so, children from violent and abusive families may grow up feeling anxious and depressed, and find it difficult to get on with other people. 
A particularly troubling aspect to the impact of exposure to domestic servitude, is that the abuse is perpetrated and condoned by the children’s parents and possibly extended family. Children learn social norms, values and behaviours from their parents. When the victim of domestic servitude is also required to tend to the needs of the children, attitudes to the victim are modeled by the adults. 
Children are often the indirect victims of domestic servitude. Investigators need to recognise the presence of children and the effects of exposure to this form of abuse, in exactly the same way that we would with regard to domestic violence. At the point of identifying suspected Domestic Servitude, Children’s Social Care should be engaged in joint planning and investigation with the Criminal Investigators. 
Children within families may therefore be witnesses but should also be considered as indirect victims of the abuse i.e. suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. 
Case Examples 
Siliadin v France 43 EHRR A cse of Domestic Servitude: A young woman who arrived in France at the age of sixteen, had worked for several years carrying out household tasks and looking after their three, and subsequently four, children for seven days a week, from 7 am to 10 pm, without receiving any remuneration. 
 
In February 2016, in Rochdale, Psychiatrist Minu Chopra and her Marine Engineer Husband,Sanjeev Chopra, both aged 47 were charged with intentionally arranging or facilitating entry into the UK of a person with a view to their exploitation, and knowingly holding another person in slavery or servitude between January 1 2011 and July 31 2015. The alleged victim was a 28 year-old female. The couple had an 8 year old child. 
 
Emanuel and Antan Edet kept Ofonime Sunday Inuk in domestic Servitude. Emanuel Edet was a Doctor and his wife a senior nurse. Ofonime was made to sleep on a piece of foam and kept his meagre possessions in a cupboard under the stairs. Ofonime Inuk’s work included included cooking, cleaning and gardening and looking after the couple’s two children. 
 
In the Case of R-v-SK (2011) the victim, MM, said she had worked as a cleaner at the hospital run by SK’s husband in an African country. After he had died she was made redundant. SK thensuggested to MM that she should come to the United Kingdom and work for her. MM said that when she arrived at the SK’s home she was not given her own room. She was made to sleep on a mattress on the kitchen floor. She had to keep her belongings in a shed outside. Often she was cold at night. SK required her to work all day and into the night. She cooked, cleaned, worked in the garden and attended to SK’s two children, which required her to work at night because both of them suffered from disabilities. She would only be allowed out to do the SK’s shopping or to take SK’s son for a walk. If SK wanted something she would ring a bell to summon her. MM was expected to be available to SK 24 hours a day. 
 

In this post Criminologist, Joe Barlow, asks "Is offender profiling more of an art than a science?" 

Is offender profiling more of an art than a science? This question is hotly contested amongst many academics in the fields of criminology and forensic psychology. A key issue in this debate is described well by Winerman (2004) who explains that because offender profiling is a very new field, it so far has no universal agreement on appropriate methodologies. There is still some disagreement even on the terminology to be used by profilers and researchers. In this post I explore some of the arguments.R 
Before we start to answer the question we must carefully consider what we mean by “Art”, “Science” and even “Profiling”. These terms are very generic and can be understood in a multitude of ways. I shall start by considering offender profiling as an art: 
If we take “art” to mean a skill where the practitioner has an innate natural talent which is then developed and honed to perfection through years of practice, we can start to consider the application of this term to offender profiling. Jackson, Wilson and Rana (2011) discuss profiling as “educated guesswork” in which they cite John Douglas from his 2007 publication with Johnny Dodd stating that there can be “...similarities between profilers and physicians who ‘learn skills through brainstorming, intuition and educated guesswork” (Jackson, Wilson and Rana, 2011, p.6). Now, this assertion by Douglas that the skills are learnt through intuition and brainstorming suggests that profiling is more of an art form than a science. This is because to have intuition one must have a certain level of experience. More importantly to be able to use intuition the role that the practitioner is fulfilling must not be bound by the constraints of a fixed method. To be working without a fixed method will suggest that the work is less scientific and more focussed on the talent (intuition) of the worker. 
 
Hazelwood et al (1987, cited by Canter 2004) state that profilers “have the ability to evaluate analytically the behaviour exhibited in crime” (Canter, 2004, p.3). Canter himself then goes onto explains how the group that conducted this research saw this as an ability that is unique to the profilers and is not the consequence of much research in social sciences. This may lead us to conclude that offender profiling is in fact, an art form as it requires a level of natural talent and expertise and therefore cannot be done by just anyone. 
An equally important argument is that that profiling as a science cannot work. Newell (1973, cited in Boon and Gozna, 2009) suggests that “...the endeavour of psychology was a fruitless, pseudo-scientific one- a ‘discipline’ characterised by pockets of disconnected research that, although, employing a multitude of researchers, is nevertheless hopelessly doomed to failure as a scientific enterprise.” This statement is suggestive of the fact that because psychology is very new as science there is little to no research protocols and therefore everything is very disjointed and out of context. This leads to the inability to use anything other than the talents and skills of the individual practitioner, which will vary greatly from one practitioner to the next due to the lack of uniformity in the psychological world. This, as I suggested earlier, stems from the practise and honing of natural talents giving further weight to the argument that offender profiling is an art rather than a science. 
So what do we mean by science? According to Muller (2000) there are 2 criteria that must be fulfilled for something to qualify as a science. These are “the need for a paradigm and the requirement of falsifiability.” (Muller, 2000, p.235). This means that there must be a strong working foundation for the theory to stand up, in the same way that a wall requires an undercoat for the colour of the top coat to have its full vibrancy. Muller (2000) goes on to state how “current approaches to profiling do not yet have any substantial empirical support, but they do have the potential to be scientific if they are worked upon.” (Muller, 2000, p.235). This is very important because it is suggesting that whilst offender profiling is designed as a science and is supposed to be a science it doesn’t yet fulfil the criteria necessary to be a science. However there is a belief that it can become a science. 
Conversely Eric Beauregard (2007) makes a bold claim that only “’real’ profilers use scientific knowledge” (Beauregard, 2007, p.16) suggesting that profiling is a highly scientific exercise that requires less art than science and that those that rely on the artistic element are not ‘real’ profilers. Whilst this argument may hold a certain amount of water, it is also largely contested by the likes of Muller (2000) and others who mostly agree that currently there is more art to offender profiling than science. 
And so the debate goes on and maybe it is still to early to call -It is has been made clear by several writers such as Winerman (2004), Alison et al (2011), Canter (2004) and Muller (2000) that offender profiling is such a new field of work that a full and proper scientific method has yet to be established. As a result of this profiling in the present day is far more of an art form than science. 
This may suggest that in the future offender profiling may become more scientific however but, as well known Offender Profiler Julian Boon told me, offender profiling is a highly skilled job and as such will always require a degree of talent or art from the practitioner. 
As to whether the science or the art is more prevalent will depend on the individual practitioner. A more junior profiler may rely on scientific research to do their work but as they gain experience they will rely on science much less and use their own intuition and ability. 
 
References 
Beauregard, E. (2007) Criminal Profiling: 
Art or Science?. The Scrivener. 16 (4), pp. 16-17. 
Boon, J. (2014) E-mail to Joe Barlow, 25 November. 
Boon, J. and Gozna, L. (2009) The British Psychological Society. Available from: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-9/firing-pea-shooters-elephants [Accessed: 2 December 2014]. 
Canter, D. (2004) Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 1 (1), pp.1-15. 
Jackson, C., Wilson, D. and Rana, B, K. (2011) The Usefulness of Criminal Profiling. Criminal Justice Matters. 84 (1), pp.6-7. 
Muller, D, A. (2000) Criminal Profiling- Real Science or Just Wishful Thinking?. Homicide Studies. 4 (3), pp. 234-264. 
Winerman, L. (2004) American Psychological Association. Available from: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx [Accessed: 2 December 2014]. 
 
The family courts are now requiring video recorded evidence as a means by which children may give oral evidence in chief in family proceedings. This is a development that has come as a response to the need for children and young people to have their experiences, wishes and feelings heard by the court directly. This post offers some advice to to assist lawyers who need to issue instructions for videos to be undertaken in compliance with the ABE Guidance and the FJC Guidance on Children Giving Evidence in the Family Court. 
Timescales: It is wise to consider requesting a video recorded interview and indentifying a team to provide this at the earliest opportunity. Unlike independent risk assessments, video interviews are a discreet piece of work that can be filed as soon as the interview has been recorded. Consequently, the turn-around time can be relatively quick but there are some logistical issues that need to be taken into account e.g. finding an intermediary if required and an appropriate venue. 
 
Intermediaries: Current best practice suggests that an intermediary be provided for children that are younger than the age of 12. Intermediaries should also be instructed for children that have learning disabilities or other cognitive impairments (e.g. Autism Spectrum Disorder), communication disorders, sensory impairments or physical disabilities that may contribute to communication difficulties. The Intermediary’s role is to facilitate communication between the child and the interviewer . Further guidance on the use of intermediaries can be found at http://www.theadvocatesgateway.org/intermediaries#intermediaries-for-witnesses-in-family-and-civil-cases
The National Crime Agency (NCA) holds a directory of accredited intermediaries socwitnessint@nca.x.gsi.gov.uk ). It can sometimes take several weeks for an accredited intermediary to be available. In some cases it may be possible to instruct an intermediary that is not accredited (e.g. a local speech and language therapist that has knowledge and expertise concerning the child’s communication needs). It is important that the non-accredited intermediary is fully briefed regarding the scope of their role, rules of evidence and duty to the court. 
 
Recording: The video recording equipment requires an operator. This should not been done by the interviewer. The operator sometimes referred to as the controller, is a specific role. It needs to be undertaken by someone who understands the equipment that is being used. They must be present throughput the interview to ensure that it is being fully recorded and to respond to any technical problems that may arise e.g. an equipment failure. In the event of such a problem occurring the operator will immediately inform the interviewer and the interview can be suspended with the minimum impact upon the child and their account. 
The video record should be supported by a written interview plan. Any notes made during the interview including drawings or diagrams made by the witness should be dated and signed by the interviewer and filed together with the video and the interview plan. 
The operator will make two DVD recordings of the interview, one of which will be sealed and signed by the Interviewer or operator with the date of the recording. The second copy is the “working copy”. 
 
Venue: If available an interview suite is an ideal environment to undertake the interview but high demand often means that it can be difficult to book these. It is acceptable to use portable video recording equipment. This must include microphones as well as cameras and will require a meeting room that is big enough to ensure that the equipment can be set up as discreetly as possible. Video interviews should not take place in the child’s home unless absolutely unavoidable e.g. due to severe health problems or disability. 
 
Interviewer(s): The interview must be child centred; the welfare of the child is paramount. The structure and pace of the interview will be based upon the needs of the child and it is the responsibility of the interviewer to suspend or terminate the interview at any stage if continuing seems likely to cause damage to the welfare of the child taking account of the guidelines of the Family Justice Council (Re:W). 
The Achieving Best Evidence Guidance recommends two interviewers. It is my view that whilst this is extremely important in the course of investigative interviews (requiring Police and Social Workers to run joint or parrralel investigations into suspected child abuse), it may not be necessary for Family Court proceedings but the interviewer should be ABE Trained. It may be appropropriate to have the child’s named social worker present during the interview and this needs to be accounted for in the interview plan. 
Whilst the interviewer will not ask specific questions prescribed by the parties it is appropriate to agree topics that need to be covered in order to assist the court. These topics should be set out in the Letter of instruction. 
Clarity of topic areas will ensure that the interview is focused and is not unduly long. This benefits the child and the Court. 
 
For further discussion please contact Craig Barlow
A Brief History of Slavery 
The abolition of the Slavery in the 19th Century was an historic achievement in the face of stubborn resistance . It might be argued that the formal abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, specifically the ownership and sale of black African slaves, has been perceived as an end to this brutal and inhuman trade (Quirk 2006). In reality it has given way to the illicit and more diverse slave market that is referred to as Modern Day Slavery. The history of slavery is complex; it has changed and adapted through time and is influenced by politics, cultural, social and moral or religious values, migration, war, colonialism and natural disaster and economics. If there has been one constant characteristic of slavery it is the exertion of power and control by the strong over the weak. 
 
Pennington Manches is a major, well respected international law firm. The charitable foundation is the result of three years hard work by Gill Rivers. I was delighted the attend reception for its launch on March 9th at the firm's London Office. The event was well supported by many people from a variety of disciplines, all committed to fighting Modern Slavery and supporting those affected by it. The atmosphere was one of undiluted enthusiasm and camaraderie. Personally it was good to see colleagues that I've known for soe time but also meet people that are new to me, learn about their work and experience. 
Find out more at our News Page