SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Lord Scott made the following remarks in court:

"Mananchaya Wanitthanawet, you have been convicted of the human trafficking of 2 women, for the purposes of their exploitation through prostitution. This involved the deliberate degrading of fellow human beings. What you put them through was dehumanising. It deprived them of the ability to act as they wished or in their own interests. They were valued only as a source of profit. You have also been convicted of 3 associated offences.

 
It will often be very hard for a person who is exploited in this way to complain about their treatment or to report the matter to the authorities, particularly when they are in an unfamiliar country.  Language difficulties, and sometimes immigration issues, may prevent them from communicating with other people or seeking help with their plight.

Organisations exist to help individuals in such circumstances and it seems on the evidence that TARA, the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, may have done so as regards with one of  the witnesses

When such offences do come to light, it is the practice of the courts to impose substantial sentences in order to punish the offender in a manner which adequately reflects the gravity of these crimes, to deter others from regarding the exploitation of others as a potential money-making opportunity, and to protect the vulnerable from being exploited in this way.

Cameron Wilson, you have been convicted of involvement with the significant proceeds of the prostitution and exploitation of these women controlled by Ms Wanitthanawet.

Before passing sentence, I decided to obtain a Justice Social Work Report on each of you, not least as I was informed that neither of you had any previous convictions. I made clear, and it was accepted on behalf of both of you, that a custodial sentence was inevitable and that, in your case, Ms Wanitthanawet, it would be a significant custodial sentence. Today, Mr Paterson submitted, on the basis of the JSWR, that a substantial community penalty might be appropriate.

On charges 1 and 2, the offence under section 1(1) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

On charge 6, the offence of exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute for the purposes of gain, such as to show that you aided, abetted or compelled prostitution, the maximum sentence is 7 years imprisonment.

On charge 7, the offence of transferring, concealing and converting criminal property, the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.

On charge 8, the offence of acquiring and possessing criminal property, the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.

Charges 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime. I remind you that an offence is aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime if the person committing the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by the objective of committing or conspiring to commit serious organised crime.

Charges 6, 7 and 8 are aggravated by a connection with human trafficking activity.

Charges 1 and 6 are aggravated by having been committed while on bail.

Cameron Wilson, in addition to charge 7 with its 14 year maximum sentence, you were convicted of charge 5, the offence of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution which carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment. That charge is also aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime.

I now have the reports which have provided me with some information about your backgrounds as well as your respective accounts of involvement in human trafficking, directing prostitution or laundering large sums of money.

In the reports, you have both downplayed and minimised your knowledge of, and involvement in, what was extremely and serious organised criminal activity.

Cameron Wilson, I will sentence you first.

Some of what I say to you affects your co-accused too as it concerns charge 7 in respect of which you were both found guilty.

Receiving and concealing the proceeds of these crimes is where you came in. Serious organised criminal enterprises depend on apparently lawful means of processing often large sums of money in ways that attract little or no attention. This operation worked more smoothly as a result of your role. I note, of course, that you were acquitted of the most serious charges you faced.

You are 30 years old and have no previous convictions. You have a good history of employment following the obtaining of qualifications at school and college. It appears that you have helped with the care of your younger brother who struggles with his mental health.

In your case, the report suggests a community payback order. That is an unrealistic and inappropriate outcome in this case. This significant organised criminal operation was made possible by the role you played.

There are guidelines in England which deal with money laundering offences such as the 2 of which you have been convicted. These suggest a range of 26 weeks to 3 years in custody with a starting point of 18 months.

Along with the report and these guidelines as a cross-check, I have considered the plea in mitigation on your behalf by Mr Paterson who has said all that can be said. I have concluded that no sentence is appropriate other than imprisonment.  That is because of the very serious nature of the charges which involved laundering approximately £137,000 in a period of over 12 months.  Imprisonment is necessary to punish you and to seek to deter you and others from such conduct.

If sentencing the 2 charges separately, charge 5 would have attracted a sentence of 12 months imprisonment and charge 7 a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. In your case, I impose a cumulo sentence of 21 months imprisonment to date from today to better reflect the overlapping activities but ensure that your penalty adequately reflects the full extent of your criminality.

Mananchaya Wanitthanawet, in the report, you have repeated the position you advanced at trial. As you know, the jury rejected your account of merely helping your 2 victims in their own endeavours.

You are clearly an intelligent person, as evidenced by your degree in business and economics. Unfortunately, you have chosen to use your intelligence and business skills in the exploitation of 2 vulnerable young women who found themselves trapped into prostitution in a foreign country thousands of miles from their homes and families.

The report tells me:

‘Relationships are linked to the risk of re-offending and the risk of harm, as Ms Wanitthanawet struck up relationships with the victims in order to traffic and exploit them for her own financial gain.’

In his plea in mitigation, Mr Gilmartin emphasised that you had no previous convictions and became involved yourself in prostitution before taking a significant role in this operation.

In England, there is a similar offence with guidelines which I have found of assistance as a cross-check in selecting appropriate sentences in your case

Looking at those guidelines, I consider that your culpability for each of charges 1 and 2 would be assessed as medium at least (B) and the harm would be in category 2. That gives a range of 6 to 10 years with a starting point of 8 years in custody.

The various aggravations on the charges against you highlight the serious nature of your offending but I have been persuaded that the serious organised crime and human trafficking aggravations are, at least to a significant extent, included in the charges themselves.

I have considered the terms of the jury’s verdict, the JSWR and Mr Gilmartin’s careful plea in mitigation.

I have concluded that no sentence is appropriate other than imprisonment.  That is because of the very serious nature of the charges.  Imprisonment is necessary to punish you and to seek to deter you and others from such conduct.

If sentencing the 5 charges separately, charges 1 and 2 would have attracted sentences of 8 and 6 years imprisonment respectively. They are the most serious charges and involved active daily exploitation of 2 women over a period of almost 3 years with the extent of the exploitation apparent from the sums of money involved. Charge 6 would have attracted a sentence of 4 years imprisonment. Charges 7 and 8 would each have attracted sentences of 18 months imprisonment. Some of the charges involved different decisions taken on different occasions and might have entitled me to make some of the sentences consecutive to each other. I consider that making all the sentences consecutive would result in a sentence that would be excessive. I have in mind also that you will be serving your sentence in a foreign country and where the language is not your first language.

In your case, I therefore impose a cumulo sentence of 9 years imprisonment to better reflect the overlapping activities but ensure that your penalty adequately reflects the full extent of your criminality.

That sentence will date from 22 August 2024.

In relation to Ms Wanitthanawet , I am making a trafficking and exploitation prevention order in terms of section 17 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 as I am satisfied that the statutory criteria for making an order are met and you do not oppose the making of the order. These will be on the conditions discussed with you by your counsel and accepted by you. The order will last for 5 years from your release from prison, although it may be that the Home Office will arrange for you to be deported at that stage. ”