This commentary analyses the Court of Appeal decision in R v. O, and considers the implications of misidentification of victims of human trafficking, both in the light of the UK's obligations with respect to these victims at the time of the decision in O, and following signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. A custodial sentence had been imposed upon O as a result of her attempt to leave the UK using false identification documents. Had she been identified as a victim of human trafficking - and there were ample opportunities for this to happen - she may not have had to endure the trauma which resulted from her conviction. Due to the fact that the Trafficking Convention was not in force in the UK at the time of the decision, it was necessary for Laws LJ to draw upon sources that were available at the time; notably, the European Convention on Human Rights. Although implementation of the Trafficking Convention has brought about more favourable conditions for this vulnerable body of persons, enjoyment of the 'rights' contained within it is wholly dependent upon correct and timely identification of an individual as a victim of human trafficking. This case highlights both the need for training for those who may come into contact with victims of trafficking, such as immigration authorities and legal representatives, and the importance of procedures that aid rapid identification so that victims of human trafficking have access to their rights. © The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

[No Keywords available]

United Kingdom immigration policy Eurasia accessibility identification method Western Europe legislative implementation Europe human rights trafficking