Section 4(1)(a) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 states that it is an offence for any person to hold another person in servitude or slavery. In February 2018, John Miller and Robert McPhee appeared at the High Court in Glasgow, charged on indictment with this offence. In defining both ‘servitude’ and ‘slavery’, the court was obliged, per s 4(2) of the 2015 Act, to have due regard to the understanding of these terms which has evolved out of the jurisprudence of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ‘Slavery’, then, was said to denote ‘the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the rights of ownership are exercised’. If, however, the definition of ‘slavery’ necessarily ‘involves rights of ownership’, then it follows that any enactment of law specifically proscribing slavery is nugatory. Indeed, in Miller, the court ultimately held that ‘there was no evidence upon which they could hold that the complainer had been held in a state of slavery’. This paper consequently asks whether or not in passing s 4(1)(a) of the 2015 Act, Parliament criminalised an impossible action.

中文翻译：

---

奴役、奴隶制和苏格兰法律：2015 年人口贩运和剥削（苏格兰）法案的历史视角

2015 年人口贩运和剥削（苏格兰）法案第 4(1)(a) 条规定，任何人奴役或奴役他人均属犯罪。2018 年 2 月，约翰·米勒和罗伯特·麦克菲出现在格拉斯哥高等法院，被指控犯有这一罪行。在定义“奴役”和“奴役”时，根据 2015 年法案第 4(2) 条，法院有义务适当考虑对这些术语的理解，这些术语是从欧盟第 4 条的判例中演变而来的。人权公约 (ECHR)。因此，“奴隶制”被认为是指“一个人的地位或状况，对其行使所有权所附的任何或所有权力”。然而，如果“奴隶制”的定义必然“涉及所有权”，因此，任何专门禁止奴隶制的法律的颁布都是无效的。的确，在磨坊主，法院最终裁定“没有证据证明申诉人被关押在奴役状态”。因此，本文询问议会是否在通过 2015 年法案第 4(1)(a) 条时将不可能的行为定为刑事犯罪。