Wick sheriff imposes first Scottish trafficking restriction order on man who exploited women in his employment

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC WCK 8
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Neil Wilson

The application by the chief constable of Police Scotland for a TERO against Kevin Booth was the first of its kind made in Scotland, and it was argued that the volume of evidence before the court could only lead to the conclusion that a consistent course of human trafficking had been carried out. It was conceded that the restrictions sought by the pursuer were necessary and proportionate, with the exception of a prohibition on foreign travel which was argued to be unnecessary.

The case was heard by Sheriff Neil Wilson in Wick Sheriff Court. Watts KC led representation for the pursuer and Webster KC for the defender.

Beatings as a condition

The defender had a house in a remote part of Altnabreac that was inaccessible by public transport. Within a building forming part of the curtilage of his home was an underground “chamber” area decorated with a coffin, ancient Egyptian figurines, and a metal bench. Video evidence was produced, filmed both at his home and other locations, of the defender instructing women to undress before violently beating them with various implements including canes, whips, and wooden paddles.

Much of the factual evidence led by the pursuer was not disputed, which narrated that from 1998 to at least December 2022, the defender had engaged in a consistent course of recruiting women, both from the UK and abroad, for the purpose of isolating them and submitting them to violent beatings. Many of the women had been recruited from abroad and induced to join him through the promise of employment as a housekeeper. Contract documents recovered from the defender’s possession stated that submission to beatings was a condition of their employment.

It was noted that the defender had previously been charged with assaulting children in his care by caning and whipping in 1991, that he had left the UK in an attempt to evade justice, and he had caned many students whilst in employment as a teacher in Botswana. He was convicted of indecently assaulting his Brazilian au pair in 2002. The defender did not give evidence, and no evidence was led on his behalf.

For the pursuer it was submitted 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. Whilst there was no direct evidence of the defender travelling abroad, there were Skype messages detailing his arrangements to meet women at foreign destinations. It would not be possible for Police Scotland to monitor his conduct while abroad, necessitating an order restricting foreign travel.

On behalf of the defender, it was 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 of these interests was led.

Utterly harrowing

In his decision, Sheriff Wilson said of the evidence and submissions: “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 allows no other conclusion.”

He continued: “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.”

Assessing the proportionality of a travel ban, Sheriff Wilson noted: “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. For example, I would cite a Skype exchange referred to in Ms Watts’ submissions, 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.”

He went on to say: “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. Accordingly, I had no qualms whatsoever in concluding that the worldwide travel ban sought by the pursuer was both necessary and proportionate.”

Sheriff Wilson concluded: “The evidence of Mr Booth’s egregious conduct was, at times, utterly harrowing. The graphic video footage, combined with the context and background provided by supporting documentary evidence, 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.”

The defender was thereby subjected to a TERO, inclusive of a travel ban, for a period of five years.