A Week in the Life of a Modern Slavery Expert

Modern slavery cases are rarely straightforward. They involve complex personal histories, large volumes of documentation and legal questions that are often unfamiliar to the courts. Our role as experts is to interpret that material, highlight recognised indicators of exploitation and provide impartial analysis to assist the court in reaching fair and informed decisions.

Ordinarily, a report takes several weeks to prepare. Occasionally, however, instruction comes at the last possible moment and the work must be compressed into just a few days.

Day 1 - Instruction

The following account describes one such case – instructed on a Tuesday and listed for trial the following Monday – and illustrates both the pressures and the principles that underpin this work.

Here’s what happened:

• On Tuesday Morning, a consultation was held with our instructing solicitor to provide guidance on the types of evidence that may be useful and to explain our report process, its role within proceedings, and how a section 45 defence might apply.
• We provided a quotation, which the solicitor then submitted to the Legal Aid Agency to secure funding.
• We scheduled a meeting with the potential victim.

Case Preparation

After receiving the case documents – which ran into several hundred pages – our task was to identify potential indicators of exploitation and refine our assessment questions in light of the evidence available. This involved:

• Reviewing prosecution material, including the trial bundle, witness statements and exhibits.
• Examining personal records, including social care and medical records.
• Considering exploitation-related documentation, including NRM referrals and responses.
• Refining our assessment questions to address the specific circumstances of the potential victim’s case.

While short-notice preparation like this is both demanding and time-consuming, it is essential. By the time we met the potential victim, our questions needed to be focused, purposeful and firmly grounded in the evidence. Building an effective rapport depends not only on how questions are asked, but also on demonstrating that we are already fully apprised of the case. When an individual recognises that we have taken the time to understand their circumstances, it helps to establish trust and allows their account to be given with greater confidence.

Day 2 - Assessment

By Wednesday afternoon, we were able to meet with the potential victim. The meeting had been arranged at short notice, but as always the priority was to create a safe space where their account could be given openly. The assessment unfolded through several steps:

• We adopted a trauma-informed approach, beginning with rapport-building before moving to carefully considered questions, always allowing time and silence for the individual to speak at their own pace.
• We explained our role clearly at the outset, including what the assessment could and could not achieve, to help manage expectations and reduce uncertainty.
• We acknowledged the difficulty of discussing painful experiences, reinforcing that the individual was in control of how much they chose to share.
• We paid close attention to the individual’s body language and tone, adjusting the pace and depth of questioning whenever signs of distress or fatigue became apparent.
• We avoided unnecessary repetition of potentially traumatic details, returning to sensitive areas only where clarification was essential.

The assessment provided the crucial bridge between the individual’s account and the case paperwork, allowing us to test the evidence in context and begin forming a coherent overview. It was also an exercise in trust-building, creating space for disclosure and demonstrating that the individual’s experiences would be handled with care and respect.

Day 3 - Building the Report

By Thursday, the focus shifted from gathering information to making sense of it. The task was to draw together the individual’s account and the case papers, and to begin shaping them into a report that would withstand scrutiny in court. This involved:

• Comparing insights from the assessment with the documentary evidence and testing the consistency of the individual’s account against the wider record.
• Drafting explanatory, well-referenced explanations to contextualise relevant case features for the court – for example, where debt bondage is reported, setting out the guidance and research showing its prevalence in exploitation and its function as a recognised control mechanism.
• Employing triangulation – cross-referencing interviews, case records and research to build a balanced and reliable picture.
• Reaching a professional judgement on whether the features of the case aligned with recognised indicators of modern slavery, and explaining how these features should be understood within the wider evidential context.

The work of Thursday was intensive. Hours of careful analysis were needed to ensure that every paragraph was grounded in evidence, every explanatory section was fully referenced and the report as a whole was impartial and defensible. Our task was to interpret the evidence, highlight recognised indicators of modern slavery and explain their significance in context. It was then for the court to decide what weight to place on those findings.

Day 4 - Quality Assurance and Submission

By Friday, the focus was on ensuring that the report met the highest professional standards before being submitted. Accuracy, impartiality and evidential clarity were paramount. This stage involved:

• Conducting a detailed review of the draft to test for precision, neutrality and appropriate referencing.
• Submitting the report to an internal quality assurance process, where a second expert at Black Box carried out an independent review to provide an additional layer of scrutiny.
• Finalising the report and submitting it to the instructing solicitor.

By the close of play on Friday, the report had been through several layers of scrutiny and refinement. Every section was checked for clarity, neutrality and evidential grounding, and the independent review added assurance that nothing had been overlooked. When it was finally submitted to the solicitor, there was a sense of relief as well as responsibility: relief at having met the deadline under pressure, but also the weight of knowing that the report could now play a part in shaping how the court understood the case.

Day 5 - Court

On Monday morning we attended court at 9am. The day began with a brief meeting with Counsel to discuss the case and confirm how our evidence would fit into the wider trial strategy. After this, we waited to be called. In the end, we were informed that the judge had decided, on this occasion, that the court was satisfied with its knowledge of modern slavery and that expert evidence was not required.

This does happen from time to time, and while it can be frustrating, it is ultimately a matter for the court to determine whether expert evidence is needed. That said, there are longstanding concerns about this practice. Modern slavery is a complex and evolving area and courts may not always have access to the depth of specialist knowledge that an expert report can provide.

Although our evidence was not heard, our presence in court remained important. It demonstrated:

• Readiness to assist if called upon.
• The depth of preparation already undertaken, ensuring we could contribute immediately if required.
• Professional accountability to both the court and the instructing solicitors, even when evidence was not admitted.
• Support for the potential victim, showing that their account had been taken seriously and prepared for presentation at the highest level.

This experience reflected one of the challenges of running a modern slavery expert witness practice. Judicial discretion must be respected, yet the absence of expert evidence can mean that important contextual factors are not fully explored. Our role, even when not called, is to be ready, impartial and thorough – ensuring that when courts do seek expertise, the evidence is there to assist in reaching fair and informed decisions. It also serves as a reminder of why preparation matters: the work undertaken in the preceding days is never wasted, because it reinforces our knowledge of the case, supports the instructing solicitor and upholds the confidence of the individual whose lived experience was at the heart of the proceedings.