Sexual exploitation is a standalone offence requiring proof that complainant had been trafficked within the meaning of statute

Criminal Law – question of law referred by DPP without prejudice to verdict – respondents charged with counts of sexual exploitation contrary to s.3(2) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1988 – LS faced 8 charges – PS faced 3 charges – all eleven counts involved allegations of inviting, inducing, or coercing the complainant to participate in various sexual acts at or near the farmhouse, farmyard, or farmlands of PS – complainant gave evidence – application for directed verdict of not guilty was advanced on foot of contention that sexual exploitation was not a standalone offence but also that the child exploited had been trafficked – arising from the acquittal, DPP referred a question of law to the Court of Appeal – Was the trial judge correct to rule as a matter of statutory interpretation that the offence of Sexual Exploitation of a child contrary to Section 3(2) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 was not a standalone offence but rather required proof that the complainant had been trafficked within the meaning of the Act – wording of the section is clear and unequivocal - any residual doubts are dispelled by the expanded definition of sexual exploitation inserted in s.3(5) of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 by s.10 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 – trial judge was incorrect in ruling, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the offence of sexual exploitation is not a standalone offence, but rather requires proof that the complainant has been trafficked within the meaning of the Act.