[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT WICK
[2025] SC WCK 8
WCK-B17-23
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF NEIL WILSON
in
Summary Application under and in terms of Section 26 of the Human Trafficking and
Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015
in the cause
SIR IAIN LIVINGSTONE QPM, Chief Constable, Police Scotland
Pursuer
against
KEVIN BOOTH
Defender
Pursuer: Watts KC, Arnott
Defender: Webster KC, Crabb; Levy & Macrae Solicitors, Glasgow
WICK, 1 February 2025
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause:
Finds the following facts admitted or proved, in addition to the matters covered in the Joint
Minute of 4 March 2024 and the Supplementary Joint Minute of 8 January 2025:
1.
That the pursuer is the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
2.
That the defender is Kevin Booth, who resides at Lochdhu Lodge, Altnabreac,
Caithness.
3.
That Lochdhu Lodge is in a remote location, inaccessible by public transport.
That within a building forming part of the curtilage of Lochdhu Lodge is an
underground "chamber" area, accessed via a trapdoor and a 60-metre-long
2
curved concrete tunnel. This chamber consists of several areas, containing,
inter alia, an empty coffin, life-size ancient Egyptian figures and a metal bench.
4.
That the defender, on numerous occasions, over many years, at Lochdhu Lodge
and elsewhere, violently whips women and girls causing them obvious
extreme distress and pain. In doing so, the defender uses his hands, and a
variety of implements such as canes, wooden brushes, riding crops and belts.
Specifically, that the defender restrains women to the metal bench within the
Lochdhu Lodge chamber using handcuffs for the purposes of whipping them.
These assaults are videoed by the defender.
5.
That a consistent feature of these assaults is that the defender takes pleasure in
assaulting his victims, justifies them as "punishment beatings" for minor real
or imagined infringements, takes great care in inspecting and filming the
injuries inflicted, and that in counting the set number of blows to be
administered threatens to start again if the victim struggles or resists in any
way.
6.
That, on some occasions, the victims are restrained by handcuffs or similar. On
other occasions the defender uses coercion by way of threats to withhold
payment of wages to force his victims to submit to the assaults.
7.
That at least two of the beatings are at Lochdhu Lodge.
8.
That the defender has a history of offending. Specifically, that the defender
was charged with assaulting children in his care at Greybrooks School in 1991,
the modus operandi including caning and whipping. Prior to trial, the
defender left the United Kingdom in an attempt to evade justice. On his return,
3
in 1994, he was convicted after trial at Newcastle Crown Court of five charges
of assaulting children and a further charge of failing to surrender to bail, and
made subject to a cumulo sentence of 3 months' imprisonment suspended for
2 years. Further, that in 2002 the defender was convicted after trial at Bradford
Crown Court of indecently assaulting his Brazilian au pair, then in his
employment, and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. The modus operandi, as
narrated in the defender's record of previous convictions, was that he
"threatens her with a riding whip instructs her to remove clothing.
Masturbates on top of her".
9.
That the defender, after leaving university and whilst employed as a teacher in
Botswana, caned many students, and enjoyed doing so.
10.
That the defender, since 1998 to at least December 2022, has engaged in a
consistent course of conduct of recruiting women, both from the United
Kingdom and abroad, for the purposes of isolating them, either at Lochdhu
Lodge or elsewhere far from their homes, and thereafter submitting them to
violent beatings and forcing them, through threats of violence, to perform
sexual acts on him.
11.
That in doing so the defender travelled abroad to a variety of countries to
target financially vulnerable women and induce them, through the promise of
employment and financial gain, to travel to join him in a variety of locations
distant from their home countries.
4
12.
That the defender, having removed these vulnerable women from their
families and home support structures, he is better able exploit them, and
subject them to beatings and sexual assaults.
13.
That on occasion the defender, having targeted vulnerable women abroad, goes
on to use these women to recruit further potential victims.
14.
That the defender, whilst subject to the restrictions of the Interim Orders
granted on 5 April 2023 and varied on 21 April 2023, in the course of
purporting to comply with said conditions, sought to mislead officers of Police
Scotland in an email exchange in November 2023 regarding a proposal to
sponsor the travel of a named individual.
15.
That in July 2023 a complaint was made to Police Scotland by a Ms J regarding
the defender's conduct towards her whilst she was employed by him at
Lochdhu Lodge between June and December 2022. Further, that this conduct
constituted a further instance of trafficking and exploitation.
16.
That the resources available to the pursuer, both in terms of officers directly
employed by Police Scotland, and in terms of assistance available from the
appropriate authorities in other countries both within and outwith the
European Union, are wholly inadequate to the task of monitoring the
defender's movements and actions outwith the United Kingdom.
Finds in fact and in law as follows:
1.
That the defender has, for a period of many years, carried out a systematic
course of conduct of acts of human trafficking and exploitation.
5
2.
That in doing so, the defender regularly travelled outwith the United Kingdom
to facilitate the commission of said acts.
3.
That the defender travelling outwith the United Kingdom formed an integral
and necessary part of this course of conduct.
4.
That the defender presents a substantial risk of continuing to commit said acts.
5.
That restricting the defender only to the extent conceded by defender's counsel,
namely paragraphs (i) - (vi), (viii) and (ix) of pursuer's Crave 1, would not
provide sufficient protection to potential further victims of his conduct.
6.
That it is necessary and proportionate, in addition to the restrictions conceded
by the defender, that the defender shall be prohibited from travelling to any
country outwith the United Kingdom, as sought by the pursuer's Crave 1(vii).
Therefore:
The pursuer's first Plea-in-Law is sustained and the pursuer's First Crave is granted.
Accordingly, the defender is made subject to a Trafficking and Exploitation Order pursuant
to section 26 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, for a period of
5 years, with the following conditions:
(i)
The defender shall be required to notify a Constable of the Police Service of
Scotland in writing at least 14 days in advance of employing, contracting with
or otherwise engaging the services of any woman as a housekeeper or in any
other role or capacity that involves the delivery of any personal or domestic
services to the defender or his family residing with him at Lochdhu Lodge,
Altnabreac, Halkirk, KW12 6UR or any other property owned or leased by him,
6
either directly or indirectly, providing the following information pertaining to
the prospective employee:
a.
Full name
b.
Date of birth
c.
Nationality
d.
Address
e.
Telephone number
f.
Email address
g.
National Insurance number (or equivalent dependent on nationality)
h.
A written contract of employment including full details of the employee's
proposed duties and remuneration arrangements
i.
Proof of immigration status, including entitlement to work in the United
Kingdom
In relation to any woman already employed or contracted or otherwise
engaged as a housekeeper or in any other role or capacity that involves the
delivery of any personal or domestic services to the defender or members of his
family residing with him or at any other property owned by him, the defender
is required to provide the information sought within 7 days.
(ii)
The defender shall not make any changes to the terms of any such
employment, contract or other agreement provided to a Constable of the Police
Service of Scotland in terms of paragraph (i) of this order without prior written
permission being sought from and granted by a Constable of the Police Service
7
of Scotland at least 14 days before any proposed changes are to become
effective.
(iii) The defender shall be required to notify a Constable of the Police Service of
Scotland 7 days in advance, of the name, address, and nationality of any female
person, other than an immediate family member, who will be present at any
property owned or leased by him for the purposes of providing any personal,
sexual or domestic services to the defender.
(iv) The defender shall be required to permit access to officers of the Police Service
of Scotland to Lochdhu Lodge, Altnabreac, Halkirk KW12 6UR, and at any
other property owned or leased by him within Scotland, for the purpose of
enabling officers to carry out welfare checks on any person(s) residing there at
any time, without prior notification.
(v)
The defender shall be prohibited from possessing any original identity or
immigration documents, other than those pertaining to himself or his
dependents, except when held for the purposes of complying with
paragraph (i) above.
(vi) The defender shall be prohibited from arranging travel or sponsoring visas,
either directly or indirectly, for anyone other than himself or an immediate
family member, unless prior written approval is sought and granted by a
Constable of the Police Service of Scotland at least 14 days prior to such
arrangements or applications being entered into.
(vii) The defender shall be prohibited from travelling to any country outwith the
United Kingdom and shall be required to surrender each passport that he holds
8
to the Police Service of Scotland at Wick Police Station, Bankhead, Wick,
KW1 5LB within 24 hours of the date of this order.
(viii) The defender shall be prohibited from making an application for a further
passport at any time prior to 4 years and 10 months from the date of this order.
In the event that, following an application made in terms of this paragraph, a
new passport arrives with the defender within a period of less than 5 years
after the date of the making of this order he is, for the avoidance of doubt,
prohibited from using it for travel until the 5-year period has elapsed.
(ix) In making the notification required in terms of paragraphs (i) and (iii) of this
Order, the defender shall be required to provide notification by email which
must be sent to all of the following email addresses:
(i)
(ii)
The pursuer will undertake to use best endeavours to acknowledge receipt of
any notification submitted by the defender in terms of this order within
48 hours of receipt. In the event that the defender does not receive an
acknowledgement of receipt of any notification sent by him within 48 hours of
the notification being sent, the defender is ordered to proceed in terms of
paragraph "x" of this order.
(x)
In the event that the defender is unable to send notification via email, for
example in the event of a failure of his internet connection, or in the event of
9
him not receiving an acknowledgement of receipt of a notification sent by
email, notification must be made by the defender via recorded delivery post to
the following address: National Human Trafficking Unit, Scottish Crime
Campus, Craignethan Drive, Gartcosh, G69 8AE.
(xi) The Chief Constable can, having provided 14 days' notice to the defender,
change the email or postal addresses to which the defender is required to make
notifications in accordance with this order.
The pursuer's third Plea-in-Law no longer being insisted on, the pursuer's Third Crave is
refused.
The defender's Plea-in-Law is repelled.
Introduction
[1]
This is a Summary Application brought by the Chief Constable, Police Scotland
seeking to have the defender, Kevin Booth, made subject to a Trafficking and Exploitation
Risk Order ("a TERO") in terms of section 26 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation
(Scotland) Act 2015 ("the Act"). Section 26(3) of the Act allows a sheriff to grant a TERO
only if satisfied that:
(a)
there is a risk that the adult may commit a relevant trafficking or exploitation
offence, and
(b)
each prohibition or requirement in the order is necessary for the purposes of
protecting persons generally, or particular persons, from physical or
psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the adult committed such
an offence.
10
[2]
Section 26(3) of the Act is referred to at this stage as the pursuer's submissions,
specifically paragraphs 4 and 5, highlight the language of the Act, namely that the legislation
is designed to address a risk that may occur, and would be likely to cause harm. As
granting a TERO, whatever its terms, involves assessment of future risk, the required
standard of proof implicit in this section of the Act is worth stressing at this stage. This
matter will be addressed in my conclusions.
[3]
Section 28(1) of the Act specifically allows for a prohibition on foreign travel for a
fixed period of not more than 5 years.
[4]
Section 28(2)(a) of the Act allows for any such prohibition to be restricted to travel to
specific countries named or described in the order.
[5]
Section 28(2)(b) of the Act allows for any prohibition to exclude specific countries
named or described in the order.
[6]
Section 28(2)(c) allows for a prohibition on travel to any country outwith the United
Kingdom.
[7]
Section 28(3) allows for the renewal of any prohibition on foreign travel at the end of
the period of restriction, the duration of any further period again being restricted to 5 years.
[8]
The terms of section 28 of the Act are highlighted at this stage for several reasons.
Firstly, the defender's position was that it was a matter of concession that the restrictions
sought by the pursuer were necessary and proportionate, with the exception of the
prohibition on foreign travel, with the associated requirement to surrender any passport
held. Secondly, it was the defender's esto position that if the court were convinced that a
prohibition on foreign travel were necessary, limiting this prohibition to specific named
countries would be appropriate and would not disproportionately affect the defender's
11
Article 8 rights. Thirdly, included in the defender's submissions was an argument that the
5-year period proscribed by the Act was in some way designed to lead to a diminution of
risk at the end of that period. These matters are addressed in my conclusions.
Court procedure
[9]
The Summary Application was lodged on 20 March 2023, and what follows is an
outline of subsequent court procedure.
[10]
At a Hearing After Service on 21 April 2023, the interim orders granted on 5 April,
(essentially pursuer's Crave 2) were varied such that condition (vii), the prohibition on
foreign travel, was replaced with a condition that the defender:
"shall be required to notify a Constable of the Police Service of Scotland in writing at
least 14 days in advance of travelling to any country outwith the United Kingdom,
providing the following information pertaining to the travel: (a) the country of
destination; (b) proposed length of stay; (c) the address and /or addresses of his
proposed residence(s) whilst outwith the UK; and (d) a contact telephone number of
the said residence(s). In the event of a change to any of these arrangements the
Defender requires to notify a Constable of the Police Service of Scotland in writing as
soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 48 hours."
[11]
Pursuer's Crave 3 was granted, namely that an order be made under section 4(1) of
the Contempt of Court Act 1981, postponing publication of any report of the proceedings, or
any part of the proceedings, until the conclusion of any criminal proceedings as hereinafter
condescended upon. Condescendence 22 avers that this order was necessary as the pursuer
"is engaged in an ongoing investigation of his (the Defender's) actions with a view to the
potential commencement of criminal proceedings".
[12]
At a further Hearing on 23 August 2023 condition (i)(i) - proof of immigration status
was added.
12
[13]
The interim order, as narrated in the interlocutor dated 23 August 2023, thereafter
remained in force for the duration of the case.
[14]
At a Hearing on 30 January 2024, amongst other matters dealt with, on the pursuer's
opposed motion, the defender was ordained to surrender his passport to the Police Service
of Scotland at Wick Police Office within 24 hours.
[15]
The cumulative effect of the interim order of 23 August 2023 and the surrender of
passport ordained on 30 January 2024 was that, as of 30 January 2024, the defender was in
effect subject to the restrictions craved by the pursuer. He thereafter remained subject to
these restrictions for the duration of the action.
[16]
The case having originally, and rightly, been raised at Wick Sheriff Court, it was
transferred to Inverness Sheriff Court on the pursuer's unopposed motion in order to
achieve Shrieval continuity, Wick not having a resident Sheriff at that time. At a Hearing at
Inverness Sheriff Court on 23 August 2024 the matter was transferred ex proprio motu back
to Wick Sheriff Court in anticipation of there being, in the near future, a resident Sheriff at
Wick.
[17]
After various sundry procedure, at a Hearing on 3 November 2023, a 5-day Proof
was set down for 4 - 8 March 2024, with a Pre-Proof assigned to 11 January 2024. A closed
record was lodged on 9 November 2023.
[18]
The matter then called on various occasions in January and February 2024 and, after
considerable discussion, a lengthy Joint Minute of Agreement was signed, and thereafter
lodged on 4 March 2024. In short, the effect of this Joint Minute, to quote paragraph 70 of
the pursuer's submissions, "is that all documentary and video evidence is entered into
evidence". It is referred to for its terms. On the defender's opposed motion an amended
13
Minute of Amendment was allowed to be received, and the closed record amended
accordingly. The pursuer's motion for expenses for the amendment procedure was
continued.
[19]
The case called for Proof on 4 March 2024, and the court was told that the defender
had been taken to hospital in the early hours of that morning, having taken unwell. The
pursuer's motion to start the Proof, with video evidence, in the defender's absence, was
refused. The matter was continued to 5 March 2024 for clarification of the defender's health.
[20]
On 5 March the matter was continued to 6 March 2024, once again for clarification of
the defender's health.
[21]
On 6 March the matter was adjourned, due to the defender's ill health, to dates to be
later fixed, and the question of expenses for the discharge procedure reserved.
[22]
On 3 April 2024, the pursuer having lodged a Motion for Expenses and the defender
having intimated opposition, a Hearing on Expenses was assigned for 17 May 2024. On
17 May 2024, the court having been addressed, the matter was continued to 10 June 2024 for
written submissions. On 17 June the pursuer was awarded expenses of the process between
3 November 2023 and 18 February 2024 on a party/party scale, the decision on the pursuer's
motion for the grant of an additional charge, and the pursuer's motion for the expenses of
the Hearing, both being reserved.
[23]
On 27 June 2024 the Diet of Proof was assigned to start on 18 November 2024. The
matter did thereafter proceed to Proof on 18 November 2024, on which occasion
Helen Watts KC and Victoria Arnott, advocate, appeared for the pursuer, and
Andrew Webster KC and Simon Crabb, advocate, appeared for the defender. Further
evidence was heard on 19, 20, 22 and 25 November 2024, and the matter was thereafter
14
continued to a Hearing on Submissions on 5 December, written submissions to be lodged by
close of business on 29 November 2024. This Hearing was administratively discharged, and
continued to a Hearing on 8 January 2025.
[24]
On 8 January 2025, a supplementary Joint Minute of Agreement was lodged, and is
referred to for its terms. Following submissions from Ms Watts for the pursuer and
Mr Webster for the defender, the matter was continued to 13 January 2025 for further
submissions.
[25]
On 13 January, following the conclusion of Mr Webster's submissions, and response
from Ms Watts, the matter was taken to avizandum.
[26]
Before the commencement of evidence, Mr Webster indicated that the only matter in
dispute was the necessity or proportionality of the powers contained in pursuer's
Crave 1 (vii), namely the prohibition on the defender travelling outwith the United
Kingdom.
The evidence
[27]
Before considering the evidence, I should indicate that much of the factual element of
the pursuer's evidence was not challenged by the defender. Indeed, as previously indicated,
the provenance and content of much of the evidence was covered in a Joint Minute lodged
immediately prior to the Proof in early March 2024. There was considerable evidence, led
over several days, regarding the defender's conduct, very little of which was subject to
cross-examination. What was challenged in cross-examination were the inferences which
might be drawn from the evidence. This will be dealt with in Submissions and Conclusions.
15
The pursuer's evidence
[28]
Subsequent to the Proof Hearing, Ms Watts, counsel for the pursuer provided
lengthy and comprehensive written submissions. These included a helpful summary of the
oral evidence led, in particular the testimony of Detective Sergeant Christopher Hughes
(paragraphs 86 97), Detective Sergeant Kevin Byrne (paragraphs 98 101), Detective
Sergeant Fiona Moar (paragraphs 102 106) and Detective Constable Natalie Hamill
(paragraphs 107 108), as well as the video evidence (paragraphs 109 -119), Skype
conversations (paragraphs 121 -133 and 177 191), contracts documents
(paragraphs 156 - 164), immigration documents and correspondence (paragraphs 165 176)
and witness statements lodged as productions (paragraphs 154 155). The factual elements
of this summary accorded entirely with my recollection of the evidence either led in court or
agreed by way of Joint Minute.
[29]
Prior to being addressed by counsel for the defender at the Hearing on Submissions
on 8 January 2025, I sought confirmation from Mr Webster that the pursuer's summary of
the factual elements of the evidence led was not disputed and he conceded this. Given the
relative paucity of cross-examination by Mr Webster, and the wide-ranging and
comprehensive Joint Minute, this concession was entirely proper.
[30]
Given Mr Webster's position, I am satisfied that providing a further detailed account
of the evidence is superfluous, and accordingly the pursuer's submissions on the
unchallenged factual elements of the evidence are to be taken as accepted by the court.
[31]
This approach is to be treated as subject to two important caveats. Firstly, I indicated
to Mr Webster that I was not expecting him to concede the inferences that the pursuer was
inviting me to lead based on the undisputed evidence. Secondly, the evidence of DS Hughes
16
was to be considered as evidence largely of opinion rather than fact, and similarly not a
matter of concession or agreement.
[32]
In summary, the Skype messages, which were all a matter of agreement, and some of
which were presented in evidence by the pursuer, contained details of the defender
arranging travel, visas, passports, payment and accommodation for many women, with a
view to meeting them at various locations abroad. Some of these messages explicitly
mentioned payment for submitting to beatings. There were also letters, both hard copy
found at the defender's home and electronic copies recovered from his devices, between the
defender and various immigration authorities arranging visas for many women and seeking
to sponsor their travel. The contract documents, again recovered from the defender's
possession, contain details of "agreements" between the defender and various women,
stating their obligation to submit to beatings as a term of their employment by the defender.
The provenance of these documents, and the defender's role in their origin, were all agreed
by way of Joint Minute.
[33]
The witness statements, six in total, were obtained by police in the course of their
investigations into the defender's conduct, and all detail the defender employing them at
Lochdhu Lodge and thereafter subjecting them to beatings, or threatening to do so. The
provenance of these statements, and that they were accurately noted by police officers, was
again agreed by Joint Minute.
[34]
Also a matter of agreement was that a further complaint was made in July 2023 by a
Ms J regarding the defender's conduct in 2022. The statement detailing this conduct was
admitted to be accurately noted by the police officers, and contained details of the defender
17
pressurising Ms J to provide sexual services in the course of her employment at Lochdhu
Lodge.
[35]
Also the subject of agreement was evidence of the defender being investigated for
raping a woman in his employ in the Republic of Ireland, and subsequently seeking to apply
financial pressure on the complainer to withdraw her allegation. There is also reference,
contained in the defender's Skype chat, of his sponsoring the complainer to travel from
Botswana to the Republic of Ireland, and of her not knowing that, once there, he planned to
whip her.
[36]
Given that the evidence of DS Hughes was, in my view, qualitatively different from
the other evidence led, I will consider it in some detail at this stage.
[37]
Detective Sergeant Christopher Hughes stated that he was 44 years of age, with
16 years of police service, and that he had worked in the National Human Trafficking Unit,
Specialist Crime Division since January 2021. He also stated that, whilst previously serving
as a CID officer in Renfrewshire, he was responsible for liaising with the unit where he now
works. DS Hughes' evidence was presented to the court as, in effect, expert evidence on the
subject of trafficking and exploitation, given his experience and his day-to-day involvement
in the investigation of alleged instances of human trafficking in Scotland. He confirmed that
he was directly involved in the investigation into the defender, and further that applications
for a TERO were rare, and Kevin Booth's was the first one to be contested.
[38]
DS Hughes' evidence as to typical features of trafficking and exploitation was
objected to by Mr Webster in the course of the Proof, and thereafter heard under reservation.
For the avoidance of doubt, I consider his evidence on this matter admissible. The relevance
and weight I attach to it will be addressed later. As to the evidence itself, an accurate
18
summary of DS Hughes' description of trafficking is provided in the pursuer's submissions,
(paragraph 88), namely that common features of trafficking and exploitation include:
"a power imbalance between perpetrator and victim; coercion; violence; use of
violence to secure compliance with the perpetrator's demands; isolation; fear of
punishment or something worse happening; and infliction of distress."
DS Hughes thereafter stated that isolating victims by moving them abroad, away from
family and home support structures, and thereby increasing their vulnerability, were
indicative of trafficking.
[39]
DS Hughes then gave evidence as to his views on the necessity and proportionality
of a travel ban, both by reference to his interpretation of the defender's methods of
trafficking and exploitation, and further by describing the limited resources available to
Police Scotland to monitor the defender if he were permitted to travel abroad.
[40]
DS Hughes stated that he had reviewed the video and documentary evidence in the
case, in particular the Skype messages recovered from the defender's electronic devices, and
was of the view that Mr Booth regularly travelled abroad, where he recruits economically
vulnerable women from poor countries, arranges and pays for them to travel to a variety of
countries, in particular South Africa, Dubai, Sri Lanka and the Philippines, where, once
isolated and within his control, he subjects them to violent beatings.
[41]
In his evidence, DS Hughes was taken through a considerable volume of Skype
messages, the general theme of which could be summarised as outlining the defender
organising travel, visas and payment for women, and subsequently arranging to meet and
abuse them. DS Hughes characterised this course of conduct as trafficking and exploitation.
The content of these messages was not challenged by Mr Webster. These messages being
found on electronic devices belonging to the defender was a matter of agreement, and the
19
assumption that Mr Booth was the person organising the alleged trafficking and exploitation
was, again, not challenged or subject to cross-examination.
[42]
In the course of DS Hughes' evidence, the court was also played a total of 13 videos
of Mr Booth beating young women. The pursuer's written submissions (paragraph 119)
included a detailed description of the contents of these videos. That Mr Booth was the
person administering the beatings was a matter of agreement, and the only matters subject
to cross-examination were focused on what inferences regarding location might be drawn
from the videos themselves, and the places noted on the associated file names. Rather than
briefly outline these videos, the pursuer's full summary is contained in Appendix A and
referred to for its terms which are incorporated herein brevitatis causa.
[43]
A total of at least 341 videos, all featuring the defender, were recovered by the police,
45 of which were lodged in process. The contents of these remaining videos are reviewed
the cybercrime reports. These reports state that these remaining videos contain content
similar to that summarised in Appendix A.
[44]
It might seem gratuitous to include this level of detail. However, given that the
factual details of the beatings were not challenged, in my view this summary provides an
accurate idea of the nature of the defender's conduct that the pursuer's case is designed to
prevent. It is also worth noting at this stage that the pursuer's summaries of the contents of
the videos accord entirely with my notes of the evidence. This will be relevant at the stage
of considering the proportionality of the travel ban sought by the pursuer.
[45]
DS Hughes also gave evidence regarding the difficulties of monitoring foreign travel.
In doing so, he stressed both the limited internal resources at his disposal within Police
Scotland (he stated there were only eight police officers in the National Human Trafficking
20
Unit), and the difficulties in securing co-operation from the appropriate authorities outwith
the United Kingdom, with the possible exception of the Republic of Ireland. In particular,
he stated that Police Scotland would be incredibly unlikely to be able to secure the
co-operation of the authorities in Nigeria, Botswana, Sri Lanka, Dubai and South Africa,
these all being countries that appeared in the defender's electronic communications and/or
labelling on video recordings.
[46]
DS Hughes also stated that, if the restrictions on the defender's foreign travel were
limited to the level of supervision conceded by the defender as necessary and proportionate,
ie notification requirements re foreign travel, Police Scotland would have no way of
knowing if the defender had travelled onwards from an agreed destination, and therefore
would have no mechanism to prevent him from doing so.
The defender's evidence
[47]
The defender did not give evidence, and no evidence was lead on his behalf, other
than a transcript of an email exchange between the defender and officers of Police Scotland
which was admitted to evidence by way of the Joint Minute at the Hearing on Submissions
on 8 January 2025. The contents of the Joint Minute were advanced by counsel for the
defender as evidence of the defender's compliance with the interim order of 21 April 2023.
At submissions stage, I was invited to draw positive inferences from this exchange by
counsel for the defender, and negative inferences by counsel for the pursuer.
[48]
The email exchange dated from October and November 2023, at which time the
defender was subject to the restrictions of the interim order previously referred to. The
exchange included the defender intimating to Police Scotland, as required by the terms of
21
this interim order, of his plans whilst on holiday in South Africa, to pay for a woman he
refers to as a "long term friend" to travel to meet him and his family. As part of this
exchange the defender is asked whether the woman had ever been sponsored by him or
worked for him, and the defender replies stating that she had never worked for him. The
significance of this email exchange will be covered at submissions stage.
Submissions
Pursuer's submissions
[49]
It was not a matter of dispute that this action was the first of its kind. I was invited
by Ms Watts to treat this as evidence of its seriousness. I was not persuaded by this
argument. I made it clear at submissions stage that I intended to consider this case on its
individual merits, and would draw no inferences from its rarity or novelty.
[50]
Ms Watts' submissions on the evidence were lengthy and detailed. Absolutely no
criticism whatsoever is implied by this observation. The subject matter merited the detailed
analysis provided. However, given that little, if any, of the factual element of her
submissions was challenged, what follows is a brief precis of her position.
[51]
In her submissions, in essence, she invited me to conclude that the quantity and
quality of evidence presented to the court, and agreed by Joint Minute, were such that the
only logical conclusion which could be reached was that the defender had, for many years,
carried out a consistent course of conduct of human trafficking and exploitation in which
foreign travel was an integral part. I was referred to a substantial body of evidence in the
form of Skype messages, emails, contracts and witness statements in support of this
22
submission. Given that the vast majority of this evidence was not challenged, I do not
regard it as necessary to reiterate it in detail.
[52]
There was no direct evidence of the defender travelling abroad. However, Ms Watts
submitted that the quantity and consistency of the evidence by way of the defender's Skype
messages arranging and sponsoring foreign travel for his potential victims, his arranging to
meet them at various foreign destinations and reference to payment for submitting to
physical and sexual abuse allowed of no other conclusion than the defender was engaged in
a course of conduct of trafficking and exploitation in which foreign travel was integral.
[53]
Ms Watts also made reference to the foreign locations mentioned in the file names on
some of the abuse videos, such as Dubai and Malaysia, and the apparent foreign nature of
some of the backdrops in the videos. These are described in Appendix A. These factors
were also cited as evidence of the defender's foreign travel.
[54]
For further evidence of the defender's international travel, and the role it played in
his trafficking activities, I was referred to a letter from the defender to the UK immigration
authorities seeking to persuade them to grant a visa to a woman whom he had met in Kenya
in 2011, Botswana in 2012, India in 2013, Sri Lanka in 2013 and Dubai in 2015 and 2016
(pursuer's submissions paragraph 168). Included with the letter were entries from the
defender's passport as proof of his travels on the dates and to the places cited.
[55]
Ms Watts provided many more similar examples of arranging and sponsoring travel
(paragraphs 168 173), and also detailed links between these travel arrangements, videos of
beatings and payments being conditional on submitting to beatings.
[56]
That exploitation had occurred was not denied. The videos were a graphic
illustration of this. Nonetheless, and rightly so, Ms Watts made reference to the video
23
evidence, and in particular to the defender in the course of these videos displaying evidence
of coercive control over the victims by way of various sorts of threats. She also invited me to
infer, from hotel décor, the views from windows and the presence of foreign place names in
file names, that the majority of the videos were taken abroad. It was unchallenged in
evidence that two of the videos were taken in the chamber at Lochdhu Lodge.
[57]
In assessing the ongoing risk the defender might present, Ms Watts also invited me
to attach particular importance to two passages of evidence, namely the complaint made in
July 2023 about the defender's conduct in 2022, and the email exchange dating from October
and November 2023.
[58]
The first of these was cited as proof of the defender's ongoing actions being
consistent with his course of conduct prior to the police investigation commencing in
early 2019.
[59]
The second of these was cited as proof of the defender's lack of honesty in dealing
with officers of the Police Service of Scotland. This was the evidence introduced by way of
Joint Minute on 8 January 2025, and in referring to it Ms Watts invited me to conclude that,
in lying to the police about the nature of his previous relationship with the woman whose
travel he was seeking to sponsor, the defender was demonstrating he could not be trusted.
I was also invited to conclude that this was a recent example of the defender attempting to
traffic and exploit a previous victim. Ms Watts also pointed me towards a Skype exchange
from 2017 between the defender and a woman, Miss AV, arranging to meet her in Dubai,
and a video labelled "dubai 2017 nov." showing the defender beating a woman, and invited
me to conclude these two pieces of evidence, and the 2023 email exchange, all concerned the
same woman.
24
[60]
Ms Watts also directed me to what she termed the Irish Rape Allegation. Details are
contained in the pursuer's submissions paragraphs 140 144, and refer to the pursuer's
productions 5/191 5/193. I was invited to conclude that these documents showed clear
evidence of the defender, having been the subject of a rape allegation made by a woman
whom he sponsored to travel from Botswana to the Republic of Ireland, seeking to bribe or
coerce her into withdrawing the allegation. The contents of the documents, and that the
defender was the author of them, was agreed. Given that the conclusion Ms Watts invited
me to reach was not challenged, I regard further detail as superfluous.
[61]
I was invited to accept the evidence of DS Hughes in its entirety. In particular I was
referred to his evidence of the resources available to Police Scotland to monitor and restrict
the activities of someone such as the defender, namely a) the limited number of officers
within the National Human Trafficking Unit and, b) the limited or non-existent level of
co-operation which would be available in foreign jurisdictions such as the countries where
the defender carried out his trafficking activities.
[62]
Ms Watts also submitted it could be concluded from DS Hughes' evidence, that once
the defender was abroad, Police Scotland would have no way of monitoring his conduct or
onward travel, far less control or restrict it.
Defender's submissions
[63]
Mr Webster's submissions for the defender focused on two general arguments,
namely that, firstly, there was no direct proof of the defender travelling abroad as part of his
trafficking and exploitation activities and, secondly, that the restrictions conceded by the
25
defender were sufficient protection to any potential victims of the defender's behaviour, and
that the worldwide travel ban sought by the pursuer was neither necessary or proportionate.
[64]
These submissions did overlap to a certain extent, in that the alleged lack of proof of
foreign travel was advanced as an argument against the necessity of prohibiting such travel.
[65]
Mr Webster argued that the many and various electronic communications referred to
in court, which as a matter of agreement involved the defender, and which ex facie detailed
his making foreign travel plans as part of his trafficking and exploitation conduct, were not
direct evidence of his foreign travel. Mr Webster also submitted that the locations on the file
names of various videos of beatings were not conclusive evidence of where the recordings
were made.
[66]
Mr Webster submitted that the restrictions already in place by way of interim orders
first granted on 5 April 2023, containing as they did an obligation on the defender to provide
certain information to Police Scotland offered sufficient protection to any potential victims of
the defender's actions. In support of this, Mr Webster referred to an email exchange
between the defender and officers of Police Scotland in November as evidence of the
defender being open and honest in complying with obligations to keep Police Scotland
informed of various matters, such as travel plans and proposed sponsorship of others. In
addressing the apparent dishonesty on the part of the defender in failing to advise Police
Scotland that he had previously employed the person whom he was seeking to sponsor,
Mr Webster sought to make distinction between being employed and being offered
employment, the latter being what is specifically evidenced in the email exchange dating
from 2017.
26
[67]
It was also submitted that the prohibition on foreign travel sought by the pursuer
would have a disproportionate effect on defender's private and family life, and his foreign
business interests. No direct evidence was lead of his private and family life, other than one
of the pursuer's police witnesses making passing reference to seeing the defender with his
children at the local village primary school several years ago. Similarly no direct evidence
was led of any foreign business interests the defender might have. I was invited to draw
inferences of foreign family connections, and foreign business interests, from the contents of
electronic messages sent by the defender.
[68]
Mr Webster also sought to persuade me that a prohibition on foreign travel was not
necessary as there was no evidence of trafficking or exploitation since 2018. In doing so, he
placed considerable emphasis on the Act limiting any prohibition on foreign travel to a
period of no more than 5 years. As I understood his submission, Mr Webster was inviting
me to conclude that Parliament's intention was that a 5 year worldwide travel ban would in
some way in itself lead to a reduction of risk by the end of that period, and therefore the
defender not having carried out acts of trafficking or exploitation since 2018 was proof that
the restrictions sought by the pursuer were unnecessary.
[69]
Mr Webster also invited me to reject the opinion evidence of DS Hughes regarding
whether or not Police Scotland could effectively monitor and restrict the activities of the
defender without a worldwide travel ban being in place. In doing so, Mr Webster sought to
persuade me that, notwithstanding DS Hughes' unequivocal rejections of the suggestions in
cross-examination, a) the obligations on Police Scotland to fulfil their duties meant that
resources to monitor the defender must be made available and, b) DS Hughes' evidence on
the lack of resources abroad to help monitor a TERO was simply speculative.
27
Conclusions on evidence and submissions
[70]
In considering the evidence and submissions in this matter, I had the benefit of
Ms Watts' lengthy and detailed written submissions. It was also helpful to my deliberations
that Mr Webster's position was focussed on the one narrow issue, ie whether a worldwide
prohibition on travel was necessary and proportionate.
[71]
Whilst this is not an issue I raised with counsel for either pursuer or defender in the
course of the various Hearings, I was mindful at all times that whilst the matter before me
was novel, and serious, it did not necessarily follow that it was complex. That the pursuer
led a considerable volume of evidence, in a variety of forms, and invited me to draw certain
inferences from that evidence, be it videos, documents, Skype conversations, witness
statements or direct oral testimony may be a complicated process. However, if I am then
persuaded by the pursuer's argument, namely that the defender traffics and exploits
vulnerable woman, that he has done so for many years, and that foreign travel is an integral
part of this course of conduct, the decision as to whether a worldwide travel ban is necessary
and proportionate might be difficult, but the matters to be weighed in the balance may well
be relatively straightforward.
[72]
In reaching my decision, I found it helpful to divide the process into four questions:
i.
Has it been proved that the defender has committed acts of human trafficking
and exploitation?
ii.
If so, does foreign travel form an integral and necessary part of the defender's
proven human trafficking and exploitation?
iii.
Is there a risk of this conduct continuing, and if so, what is the level of this risk?
28
iv.
Are the measures sought by the pursuer necessary and proportionate to
addressing the determined risk?
[73]
In my deliberations I was mindful of the terms of section 26(3) of the Act, ie any
decision to grant or refuse a TERO should focus on future risk. I interpreted this as meaning
that the imposition of a TERO should not be an exercise in punishment for past behaviour,
although of course past behaviour is a legitimate factor to take into account in assessing
future risk.
[74]
It was argued by Mr Webster, and freely conceded by Ms Watts, (paragraph 64 of
pursuer's submissions) that what was being sought by the pursuer would interfere with the
defender's Article 8 rights. However, it was also conceded by the Mr Webster (paragraph 18
of the submissions for the defender) that "in principle the objective of the TERO is
sufficiently important to justify the limitation of his Article 8 rights".
[75]
Dealing with the first step of my decision-making process, I should make it plain that
I did not regard Mr Webster's focus purely on the proportionality of the worldwide travel
ban sought by pursuer as a concession on behalf of the defender that he has indeed
committed acts of human trafficking and exploitation.
[76]
However, given the evidence presented by the pursuer, I had no difficulty coming to
the conclusion that the defender has, consistently over many years, been engaged in a course
of conduct involving the targeting of financially vulnerable women whom he subsequently
coerces into submitting to abuse, and in doing so committed acts of human trafficking and
exploitation. I would go so far as to describe the evidence as overwhelming, and that the
totality of the evidence presented by the pursuer, in the form of videos, Skype messages,
documents and witness statements allows no other conclusion.
29
[77]
As noted in para [75], whilst it was not explicitly conceded by Mr Webster that the
defender was involved in a consistent course of conduct of trafficking and exploitation, the
majority of the evidence was not the subject of any significant cross-examination or
challenge in the course of the Proof.
[78]
The second question, namely whether foreign travel was an integral and necessary
part of the defender's conduct, was also one I had no difficulty in answering. That travel
was an integral part of the defender's conduct I found established by the frequent references
in his electronic communications to foreign travel plans, and by the file names appended to
various videos of beatings. Mr Webster rightly pointed out that this is not direct evidence of
the defender travelling. However, the volume and consistency of references to travel led me
to the inevitable conclusion that the defender did indeed travel on a frequent basis for the
purposes of trafficking and exploitation.
[79]
As to the question of whether travel was also a necessary part of the defender's
trafficking, I am satisfied that the contents of various Skype messages agreed by Joint
Minute are indicative of the central role an ability to travel abroad plays in his conduct.
[80]
For example, I would cite a Skype exchange referred to in Ms Watts' submissions
(paragraph 176), in which the defender displays knowledge of how to circumvent United
Kingdom immigration laws by arranging to travel to Dubai to meet a Miss AW, a South
African citizen, in order that he can employ her in Dubai and thereafter sponsor her entry
into the UK as an employee. Also before the court by way of Joint Minute is subsequent
correspondence between the defender and immigration authorities in which he seeks to
execute this plan.
30
[81]
By way of further example is evidence led by the pursuer, and referred to in
paragraph 121 of Ms Watts' written submissions, of a Skye conversation between the
defender and Miss AV (first name given in evidence of DS Hughes as "Julia") arranging for
her to travel to Dubai in November to meet him. Video 12 in Appendix A, with contents
accurately noted in the description, has a file name of "dubai 2017 nov Julia 074.MP4". I was
invited by the pursuer to infer that the woman in the video being violently assaulted is Julia,
and that the assault took place in Dubai. I did so infer, and in doing so accepted this
passage of evidence as further proof of the integral and necessary part foreign travel played
in the defender's trafficking activities.
[82]
Considerable further evidence was led by Ms Watts of the integral role of foreign
travel in the defender's trafficking and exploitation activities. I regard it as superfluous to
list them all; suffice to say that I was left in no doubt that the defender's frequent references
to complex travel arrangements constituted overwhelming evidence of his travelling to
various locations abroad in the course of his trafficking and exploitation activities.
[83]
Moving on to the third question, namely whether there was, to quote section 26(3)(a)
of the Act, "a risk that the adult may commit a relevant trafficking or exploitation offence",
I took into account the defender's previous convictions, which were a matter of agreement
and are detailed in the Findings in Fact. I also took into account the evidence led regarding
what I have concluded is a course of conduct, over many years, of human trafficking and
exploitation.
[84]
Whilst attaching some weight to past conduct, I also considered the defender's more
recent actions to be of at least equal significance.
31
[85]
I took the evidence referred by to both Ms Watts and Mr Webster, and agreed by the
Joint Minute of 8 January 2025, of the email exchange between the defender and officers of
Police Scotland in October and November 2023 as clear and unequivocal proof of the
defender seeking to deliberately mislead those tasked with monitoring his compliance with
the conditions of the interim order to which he was then subject. The contents of that email
exchange have already been covered. Suffice to say that I regarded the defender's lie to
officers of Police Scotland as to the nature of his previous relationship with
Mrs Nielson/Miss AV as very concerning, and I was entirely unconvinced by Mr Webster's
attempt to excuse it by making a distinction between previously having been employed by
the defender, and having been offered employment. A particularly worrying aspect of the
passage of evidence was that, at a time when the defender was subject to this court action
and was therefore well aware that his activities had come to the attention of the authorities,
he should appear to continue to attempt to traffic and exploit one of his previous victims.
[86]
Given that the content of the emails are a matter of agreement, and further given that
what I am being asked to decide, in part, is the likelihood of the defender complying with
the lesser restrictions conceded by Mr Webster, it is worth quoting a passage from the
defender's email to Police Scotland of 6 November 2023 following their refusal to permit
him to sponsor the travel of a woman previously trafficked by him:
"And whilst the outcome is disappointing it is reassuring to know that there is a
police department in Glasgow which is qualified to decide what is in `the best
interests' of the people in Scotland and around the world and that you are able to use
public resources and taxpayers money to enforce your moral judgements wherever
you feel it is required."
This was sent by the defender in response to the National Human Trafficking Unit's
endeavours to monitor his behaviour. Whilst the tone of the defender's email did not play a
32
major part in my reaching my decision, I did take it as redolent of someone who resented
any sort of interference in his life.
[87]
In assessing future risk another matter of particular concern is the evidence
regarding the complaint made to the police in July 2023 regarding the defender's conduct
between August and December 2022. Once again this led me to the inevitable conclusion
that the defender is utterly incapable of modifying his behaviour without external restraint.
[88]
As regards Mr Webster's submission that the most recent evidence of the defender
committing acts of trafficking and exploitation date from 2018, I would simply refer to the
previous observations regarding the complaint made about conduct dating from 2022, and
the email exchange from November 2023.
[89]
Even setting aside the evidence of the defender's conduct in 2022 and 2023, I also
found no force in Mr Webster's argument that it could be inferred that Parliament's
intention, in setting a 5-year limit on any travel ban, was to signal an expectation that after
5 years the risk of harmful conduct would have decreased.
[90]
Further, in assessing Mr Webster's submissions regarding the defender's recent
conduct, I took into account that the defender's house having been searched by police in
March 2019, petition proceedings having been commenced in December of that year and
discontinued in March 2021, and this civil action having been raised in March 2023, it was to
be expected that the majority of the evidence would be of some vintage.
[91]
In attaching little, if any, significance to Mr Webster's point regarding the defender's
conduct since 2018, I took two factors into account. The first of these was that any
assessment of the level of future risk presented by the defender had to take due cognisance
of his past conduct, and as I have made plain I have concluded that he has, for many years,
33
engaged in a consistent course of conduct of trafficking and exploitation. The second factor,
which I found particularly concerning and to which I have already referred, is that the
existence of an ongoing civil action seeking a TERO appeared to be insufficient to curtail the
very behaviour this Order is designed to prevent.
[92]
Moving on to the fourth of my questions, namely whether the restrictions sought by
the pursuer are necessary and proportionate, I had no difficulty in answering this in the
affirmative. I will deal with this question in two stages.
[93]
The first of these stages is the question of necessity. I have already concluded that
foreign travel is a necessary and integral part of the defender's trafficking and exploitation
activities. Therefore the question at this point is whether a worldwide prohibition on travel
is necessary to stop these activities, or whether a lesser level of restrictions, such as that
conceded by the defender, offer sufficient protection to future potential victims of the
defender.
[94]
In reaching my conclusion on this point, I considered, and accepted without
reservation, the evidence of DS Hughes. Despite Mr Webster's focussed and robust
cross-examination of DS Hughes, I concluded that it was entirely unrealistic to expect eight
police officers in Scotland, plus limited or non-existent foreign co-operation, to provide
sufficient control. I found DS Hughes' evidence entirely credible, both on matters of fact
and opinion, and accordingly further concluded that it was necessary to prevent the
defender from travelling abroad if his activities were to be effectively restricted.
[95]
Mr Webster cited the email exchange of late 2023 as evidence of sufficiency of current
restrictions. As already detailed, I found this argument entirely unconvincing, and indeed
34
actively harmful to the defender's case, as it provided clear proof of the defender actively
trying to deceive officers of Police Scotland.
[96]
In addition, as was pointed out by Ms Watts, Police Scotland had no idea what the
defender was actually doing or where he was once had travelled to South Africa, and were
entirely reliant on his honesty if they were to monitor and restrict his activities. At the risk
of repeating myself, I am of the plain view that the defender cannot be relied upon to be
honest, and accordingly cannot be relied upon to comply with the lesser restrictions
conceded by Mr Webster.
[97]
The second stage of this question is to consider whether the restrictions sought by the
pursuer were proportionate. In addressing me on this matter Mr Webster made reference to
the defender's private and family life and foreign business interests. I was not presented
with any direct evidence of this. Instead, I was invited to draw inferences from the email
exchanges of October and November 2023 regarding private and family life, and similarly
invited to draw inferences regarding foreign business interests from references in various
Skype and email messages. It is striking that counsel for the defender sought to persuade
me to infer conclusions from email exchanges and Skype messages as evidence of family life
and business interest, whilst simultaneously seeking to persuade me not to draw analogous
conclusions from Skype messages regarding travel to meet potential victims.
[98]
I found this evidence to be of limited probative value in assessing the effect on the
defender's personal, family and business commitments of a prohibition on travelling
outwith the United Kingdom. I should make it plain that, even if direct evidence had been
led of the defender's family and business commitments abroad, and further if I had accepted
this evidence, given the nature of the potential harm that the pursuer was seeking to
35
prevent, I would still have been of the view that the prohibition on foreign travel sought by
the pursuer was proportionate.
[99]
I would also observe that the references in Skype messages and similar to the
defender travelling abroad, purportedly for business reasons, was in the main in the context
of, and very much linked to, his trafficking plans.
[100]
Accordingly, I had no qualms whatsoever in concluding that the worldwide travel
ban sought by the pursuer was both necessary and proportionate. In reaching the
conclusions narrated above I would wish to make two observations.
[101]
Firstly, I found the evidence led by counsel for the pursuer, and the evidence
admitted by way of Joint Minute, entirely credible and reliable. In addition, I had no
difficulty whatsoever in accepting the inferences that she invited me to reach. Furthermore,
the decision to make Kevin Booth subject to a worldwide travel ban, whilst onerous, was
one I reached without hesitation. I raise this issue as counsel for the defender, in his written
submissions (paragraph 23) sought to persuade me that in assessing Mr Booth's past
conduct, I should apply a standard of proof akin to the criminal standard of beyond
reasonable doubt. This had been raised, in passing, by previously instructed counsel and
given short shrift. At the Hearing on Submissions I raised the issue with Mr Webster,
counsel for the defender, and he rightly withdrew the point. However, the point being
raised, I would wish to make it plain that had I (erroneously) held counsel for the pursuer
bound to prove her case to the criminal standard, the evidence she led would have easily
cleared that higher bar.
[102]
Secondly, the evidence of Mr Booth's egregious conduct, as presented in court, was,
at times, utterly harrowing. The graphic video footage, combined with the context and
36
background provided by supporting documentary evidence in various forms, was redolent
of a level of cruelty and depravity which, whilst extreme, one can only hope is rare. It might
be thought that the use of such value-laden language in a legal judgment is inappropriate.
I would beg to differ, and make no apologies for including it. This judgment may be
primarily concerned with the legal issues before the court, but it is important not to lose
sight of the human suffering giving rise to this case.
37
Appendix
Order
Prod.
ref
File name
Location
Summary
1
5/167
"MAH00162.MP4"
Hotel
A young black woman is in a hotel room
with the defender. He accuses her of
talking to other men. He uses a cane to
beat her naked buttocks whilst she is bent
over.
He asks her whether she thinks he has
brought her "all the way over here" so
that she could go off with other men.
He strikes her violently and asks how
"dare" she drink with other men when
she is supposed to be with him. He
continues striking her. She is crying and
extremely distressed. She repeats over
and over "sorry sir" and "oh my god".
The defender inspects the injuries he has
caused on the woman's buttocks.
38
2
5/168
"MAH00204.MP4"
Unclear
The video shows an original recording
playing on a large screen. There is a time
stamp on the original video which says
"1998". The defender is obviously
younger than in the other videos.
A young black woman enters the room.
The defender instructs her to undress.
She is naked and kneeling on the floor in
front of him. He tells her to hold her hand
out and starts to strike it with an
implement. He tells her not to move; if
she moves, he will give her more strokes.
He tells her to bend over a chair. He
positions her and flicks and flexes the
cane repeatedly through the air; it makes
an audible sound. The defender strikes
the woman hard on the buttocks with the
cane. It leaves visible marks on her skin.
The defender swaps to a strap and
continues to strike the woman whilst
39
reprimanding her. The defender then
swaps to another implement a thicker
cane - and then to a wooden paddle. He
strikes the woman with the paddle.
The defender zooms the camera in on the
woman's injuries to inspect them. Strike
marks are obvious. He then begins to
cane her again.
40
3
5/154
"kaone
5cc
003.MP4"
Lochdhu
The defender is visibly older than in the
video with the "1998" timestamp. He is
naked apart from his underwear. He lies
on a bed. Music is playing. A young
black woman enters. The defender
instructs her to lie naked across his lap.
The video shows a prolonged beating
close to 23 minutes in duration.
The defender repeatedly strikes the
woman on her buttocks with his hand. He
tells her it is a shame her "bottom has to
pay for what [her] mouth did".
The defender repeatedly refers to
punishment. He tells her she deserved
every stroke. He then picks up what
appears to be a wooden brush and begins
to strike the woman. She screams and
howls in pain. The defender repeats that
her bottom has done nothing wrong; it is
her mouth. At around 9 minutes into the
beating, the defender tells her he is only
41
halfway through. She screams and cries.
The defender switches back to slapping
her with his hand. He inspects the marks
left on her buttocks. The defender
complains that he has not heard the word
"sorry" yet. He continues to strike her.
He complains that he has always been
"calm and respectful to her" and he expects
the same back. He strikes her hard. She
is crying and screaming; she says
"sorry".
The defender switches back to the brush
and continues to strike the woman. She is
struggling and trying to get away but the
defender holds her down.
He asks her if she wants to get her four
straps over with now or in the evening.
He instructs her to kneel with her hands
42
on the headboard. He picks up a further
implement (a crop or a stick) and beats
her with force. She screams in pain.
4
5/147
"52.MP4"
Hotel
A young black woman is kneeling down
in what appears to be a hotel room. The
defender instructs her to take her top off
which she does. The defender appears to
be berating her for breaking his rules. The
defender complains that he told her not to
use the phone. He is also angry that she
did not address him as "sir" in an email.
He complains that she sent him a rude
email. He is angry that the young woman
wrote in an email that God would punish
the defender for how he has treated her.
He shouts at her "how DARE she write
that"?
The woman starts apologising and calling
him "sir". The defender instructs her to
move her hands. He grabs her and forces
her to kneel. The woman is terrified. He
repeats "how dare you write God will
43
punish me?"
He calls her "Selena" and tells her that
she is the one who is going to get
punishment. The defender tells her he
will give her a whipping she will never
forget.
He instructs her to take the rest of her
clothes off. She is screaming and crying
and is apparently terrified, cradling
herself in fear. She becomes hysterical.
She is crying and says "I want to go home".
She will not follow the defender's
instructions.
The defender tells "Prinny" to go and buy
her a bus ticket to get to the airport.
Selena says she can't go alone; the
defender tells her Prinny is not going
with her.
During this, there is a knock on the door;
the defender goes to the door and says
"no housekeeping thank you".
44
5
5/185
"Malaysia 029"
Hotel
(likely
in
Malaysia)
A young black woman is lying down in a
bath tub. She is naked. There is no water
in the bath. The defender stands over her
chest area. He is naked from the waist
down. He tells her to close her eyes. The
defender then urinates on the woman's
chest and face area.
6
5/145
"dubai 027.MP4"
Hotel
(likely
in
Dubai)
A young black woman is led into a hotel
room. The defender grabs her. He slaps
her hard on the face on multiple
occasions. He appears to be berating her.
The defender instructs her to strip naked;
she does. He seizes her neck and pushes
her over a chair. He kicks her legs apart
until she is in his desired position. He has
taken off his belt and has it in his hand.
The defender strikes her with the belt
across her buttocks.
She tries to get away; she is crying and
protesting but the defender pulls her back
and slaps her face. He tells her not to even
try to defend what she's done. She is
weeping and is very distressed. There is
an argument and the defender puts her
45
out of the hotel room. She is naked; she
takes her clothes and leaves.
7
5/162
"MAH00017.MP4"
Hotel
This video is close to 30 minutes long. It
shows a prolonged and sustained
beating by the defender.
A young black woman is kneeling on the
floor. The defender handcuffs her with a
pair of metal handcuffs. The defender lies
on the bed and the woman lies across his
lap. She appears to be crying; the
defender tells her to keep still. The
defender informs the woman that he is
going to give her "30 hard ones" then 15
smaller ones, followed by a 1-minute
break, then another 30 hard ones
46
followed by another 15 minutes of
smaller ones.
The camera appears to be being handled
by a third party. The defender begins
whipping the woman with a cane across
her buttocks. The camera pans in to the
buttock area. The woman is immediately
distressed. She is crying and appears to
be in pain. The defender holds her down
and tells her to be quiet.
The defender refers to the woman as
"Selena". He informs her that if there is
any screaming he will start again from
the beginning.
The striking continues with the defender
counting the strokes. The woman is
extremely distressed and appears to be in
pain. Injuries can be seen on her buttocks.
The defender tells he is about to start the
15 smaller ones. She wails "no". The
defender continues to whip the women
with an implement. He tells her they are
halfway and she can have a minute-long
47
break.
The defender tells the woman she can
agree to what he suggested outside if she
wants it to stop. She tells him she would
rather have another 30 strokes. He tells
her it could all be over now if she agrees
to the other thing.
She is addressing him as "sir".
He moves her to a chair and instructs her
to bend over it. She is still handcuffed. He
starts whipping her with a cane; she
moves and he tells her he is starting at the
beginning again because she moved. She
is wincing in pain. There are visible
injuries on her buttocks which appear
consistent with being struck by the
implement.
The defender forces the women to kneel
in front of him and to take down his
trousers and pants. He instructs her to
48
look at his penis and asks if she will do it.
Another woman referred to by the
defender as "Prinny" kneels down next to
the original woman. The defender says
"Prinny has to do your job for you".
The original female is handcuffed
throughout the video. The defender beats
her for the majority of the duration of the
video.
49
8
5/146
"32.MP4"
Unclear
The video is 25 minutes long and shows
a prolonged and sustained beating
perpetrated by the defender.
A young black woman is naked and
kneeling on the floor. The defender tells
her there has been a problem and that
there will be a punishment. She has
broken his rules by not calling him "sir"
between the hours of 10am and 6.30pm.
He asks why she is avoiding his eye
contact and she explains it is her way of
showing him respect.
The defender tells the women he will
punish her "just as he had to do in
Botswana". The punishment in this case
relates to her failure to call him "sir".
He tells her this is not the easy option;
spanking will hurt. He will start with his
hand and then move to his belt. He tells
her that if she survives it, she will get to
learn the rest of the rules.
He instructs her to lie across his lap while
50
he sits on the sofa. The defender begins
striking the woman with his hand
repeatedly. She is struggling to get away.
He holds her in place and tells her not to
change her position. She is extremely
distressed.
She screams out that he said 30 strokes;
he replies that he hasn't even started. He
tells her if she says stop he will stop. She
is silent; eventually she says "do as you
please sir" in strained voice. He replies
51
that he's not even 10% in. He
recommences striking her.
The defender begins to strike her with a
slipper. The woman is screaming and
crying out "oh my god". She is hysterical
with distress. She appears to be
screaming in pain. She is writhing trying
to get away but the defender holds her
down.
She says that she has learned her lesson
and it will never happen again. The
beating
continues.
Eventually
the
defender tells her to kneel on the sofa. He
undoes his belt and walks in front of her
so that she can see it. He returns to his
position behind her and strikes her with
the belt. The woman is extremely
distressed; she rolls of the sofa; he
instructs her to get back on and continues
to strike her.
He inspects her buttocks, apparently for
marks.
52
9
5/182
"MAH00558.MP4"
Hotel
The video appears to have been shot in a
hotel room. The view out of the window
is not a view from Lochdhu. The pursuer
submits the view from the hotel room
shows buildings not of a construction
style typically found in the UK (but the
Court will have its own view of that).
The defender looks a little younger than
in some of the other videos his hair is
still brown.
A young black woman is naked. The
defender instructs her to kneel.
The defender informs the women she is
to be punished with 30 strokes for flirting
and interacting with other men. The
defender tells the women that she has put
him to an awful lot of trouble. He tells her
he has questioned whether they would
ever meet again. A more serious
punishment of 40 strokes is required for
53
her refusal to be punished the first time.
In total, the punishment is 70 strokes.
The defender slaps the woman across the
face until she says "yes sir". This is
repeated until he is satisfied with her
response.
He tells her she will not be able to take 70
strokes at once so he will do 50 now and
20 later.
The defender positions the woman over a
table while she is naked. The defender
duct tapes her wrists to the table so that
she cannot escape. She is positioned with
her buttocks exposed.
The defender begins striking he with an
implement. He swaps to a cane and
proceeds to strike the woman with
considerable
force.
Marks
are
immediately visible on her buttocks.
The defender forces the woman to count
the strokes (one, sir, two, sir and so on).
54
The woman is crying and sobbing. The
striking is violent and brutal. The camera
pans in on her buttocks. There are visible
severe injuries. Her skin is broken and
she is bleeding. The defender continues
to strike her with a cane despite the fact
that her right buttock is bleeding.
10
5/188
"Philip 006.MP4"
Hotel
(likely
in
Philippines)
The defender is visible in the mirror.
A young black woman kneels on the
floor. She appears to be very young. The
defender is angry with her for
"unacceptable" behaviour. She asked his
opinion about what to wear for the
journey over and ignored it. She says that
55
she is "sorry"; he tells her she will be in
a few minutes; that alone is worthy of a
caning.
He tells her there is another matter. He
refers to their discussion on the internet.
He refers to asking her about the last time
she had sex.
The defender then refers to her
application for a Visa to come to the
Philippines but then she went to Abuja
[in Nigeria].
He continues to berate her saying that
they started dating in December and that
he told her he was a jealous type and that
he told her what would happen if she so
much as looked at another man.
She is naked. He tells her his intention
was to give her 5 hours of punishment to
include 100 strokes of the cane but her
honesty works in her favour.
56
She positions her over a chair and tries
unsuccessfully to handcuff her under the
table. Instead he says if she moves he will
start again from one. The defender whips
the woman with a cane and forces her to
count. She is extremely distressed and
crying. He prowls around her. He
inspects the injuries to her buttocks.
The defender instructs her to kneel in
front of him. He grabs her hair and holds
her in position. He has a leather strap in
the other hand. He forces her to undo his
trousers and take down his underwear.
His penis is exposed. He instructs her to
fellate him.
11
5/175
"MAH00345.MP4"
Lochdhu
This video shows the red and black metal
contraption in the tomb area of Lochdhu.
A young black woman is hand cuffed to
it in a kneeling position. The defender
tells her she is being punished for the way
she spoke to him. He tells her she has to
learn her lesson. She appears to be
57
terrified. She is screaming and crying.
She repeatedly tries to get away but is
handcuffed to the bench.
The defender swaps implements and
continues to beat her. She is hysterical.
She cries out that it is painful. The
58
defender continues to strike her. The
defender tells her to "pray for the strength
to take it properly".
This continues for the duration of the
video: 18 minutes.
This appears to be nothing other than
torture. She is chained to the contraption
while the defender beats her. She is
apparently terrified and tries to escape
but cannot.
12
5/155
"dubai 2017 nov
Julia 074.MP4"
Hotel
(likely
in
Dubai)
A young black woman is naked and
kneeling on the sofa with her buttocks
facing the camera. The defender uses a
cane to whip her buttocks. The strokes
appear forceful. She is crying and
protesting. She crawls off the sofa. He
repositions her on the sofa and continues
to whip her with a cane. She is writhing
and trying to get away. She is distressed.
The defender moves her back to position
again and continues whipping her. He
inspects the marks on her buttocks. He
59
describes dots of blood on the sofa / white
pillows.
The camera pans in on the woman's
buttocks. The woman's buttocks are
badly marked from the cane. The skin is
split and she is bleeding. The defender
inspects her injuries.
The video lasts for approximately 9
minutes. The beating occupies most of
that time.
13
5/153
"Cat 2 007.MP4"
Lochdhu
A naked white woman is chained to the
bench in the tomb area of Lochdhu. The
defender canes her forcefully. Her
buttocks are visibly injured. A second,
and apparently young, female is seen at
the end of the video.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2025/2025scwck008.html
