Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The case I want to raise can best be outlined by the summary provided by Ruhama. Anyone who knows about victims of the sex industry is aware of the work of Ruhama. The organisation has outlined in summary the case of Edith Orumwenes and its concerns about whether basic minimum standards of protection and assistance to presumed victims of human trafficking are being adhered to in Ireland:

In early November, Edith Orumwenes was arrested in Castlebar for not having identification papers. We first met Edith in early December in the Dóchas Centre in Dublin, we assessed her under the UN Protocol on Human Trafficking and we identified her as a presumed victim of human trafficking.

The indicators of human trafficking found in this woman's case were clear: the country of origin and particular state (Edo, where 80% victims of sex trafficking victims in Nigeria come according to UN statistics). Her account of how she was recruited was credible — her position of vulnerability, poverty, lack of education, she had never travelled abroad before and she was fleeing a forced marriage. The signs of trauma — high level of anxiety, emotionally upset, difficulty sleeping and no documentation — were all present.

Ruhama is very much aware of the modus operandi of the sex trade in Ireland and how traffickers are supplying the sex industry with women. Edith's version of what happened her was consistent; she told us about how her original trafficker handed her over to pimps, how she was photographed for the Internet, given a mobile phone, and told what prices to charge.

Following our identification of her as a presumed victim of trafficking, we referred her to the superintendent in GNIB for consideration under the recovery and reflection period. We also asked that the liaison officer from GNIB would come and meet with Edith in the Dóchas Centre as we believed they had more knowledge and experience of assessing victims of trafficking than the local gardaí in Mayo. However after two requests the GNIB liaison officer was not sent to meet with Edith and the assessment of Edith as a presumed victim of sex trafficking was left to the gardaí in Castlebar.

From my understanding, they had no idea what to look for in a trafficking case.

From our first-hand experience of attending the court hearings, we could see that when this woman presented as irritable or unable to meet the demands of the criminal justice system she was labelled "uncooperative" and was penalised for this. In our opinion she was clearly viewed as a criminal and not as a potential victim.

Edith was expected to cooperate with gardaí in Castlebar after she had spent long hours travelling from Dublin and attending the court hearing; she was often physically and emotionally exhausted. On one occasion she spent up to 20 hours from the time she left the Dóchas Centre until her return, placing further strain on her already fragile emotional state. This does not suggest a concern for her welfare. We are concerned to have since been told that on all occasions Edith received very little food or drink.

It is well established that when people are in trauma they suffer from memory loss and disorientation. I quote from the IOM manual on dealing with victims of human trafficking which is used by the Garda training: "Even if an individual lies about or refuses to disclose certain information on occasions, or forgets or changes parts of her/his story, this is not a reason to discredit other information they have provided or to determine the individual is untrustworthy." This accepted norm was clearly not applied in this case. At Ruhama we found Edith to be cooperative, polite and forthcoming with information.

Best practice recommends the importance of helping the presumed victim to feel safe and that she is approached in a manner that builds trust. This is where the reflection and recovery stage is important in the process. This did not happen in Edith's case; she was incarcerated despite disclosing early in the investigation that she was forced into prostitution. This did not inspire confidence or trust on her side, or create an environment conducive to cooperation.

However she was cooperative with the gardaí. She provided an account of her movements in Ireland, she surrendered her mobile phone, which was not used in the court case against her, she provided information on her movements in Ireland during numerous interviews, she pointed out the house in which she alleges she was held captive and she watched CCTV and made positive identification.

We believe the screening of a presumed victim of human trafficking was not adequately carried out by the gardaí in Mayo because of their lack of experience and knowledge on the issue. Ruhama workers tried talking to local gardaí about the best practice guidelines for working with victims of sex trafficking but they told her that they had been advised by GNIB that they could keep her in prison for months while trying to establish her true identity.

This is no way to treat a victim who has more than likely been trafficked by a gang for profit from a poor region of Nigeria into Ireland to feed the sex industry, where she was probably abused. She has been treated as an illegal immigrant, without identification and put in prison for months.

There was a debate on human trafficking in this House when the Minister for Finance was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We passed important legislation in this area but, if anything, our attitude to likely victims of human trafficking is moving in the wrong direction.

See this speech in context