The High Court has refused an application by Win Lin challenging his detention at Cloverhill Prison, finding that it was lawful. Mr Justice Hogan ruled that although Lin had been held in conditions amounting to servitude in a cannabis growhouse, the evidence did not establish that he had been trafficked into Ireland.
Lin was arrested in November 2012 at a cannabis growhouse on Henrietta Place, Dublin 1. He pleaded guilty in March 2014 to cultivating cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and was awaiting trial on other drugs charges. He argued that he had been trafficked and should not be prosecuted for offences he said were connected to his exploitation.
According to Lin’s account, threats against his family over a debt led him to travel abroad. He said he was brought to Ireland, worked in Chinese restaurants and later accepted a job tending plants. The judge found aspects of his account implausible and noted that Lin could not give a clear account of how or when he arrived. The judgment said independent evidence had not confirmed his identity or journey.
The court separately found that Lin had been locked inside the growhouse for several weeks under a real threat of violence. His vulnerability, including his lack of English and irregular immigration status, meant he could not effectively secure his release, the judge concluded. That amounted to “servitude or a similar condition or state” under the Criminal Justice (Human Trafficking) Act 2008, even though Lin had initially agreed to take the job.
However, the judge was not satisfied that Lin had been trafficked into Ireland. He treated Lin’s ability to travel around the country for several months before entering the growhouse as independent evidence weighing against that claim. The judgment also noted that Chinese national Ms Y., who had leased the premises, was arrested in January 2014 and that police found other Chinese nationals’ passports in her home. The judge described this as suspicious, but said the evidence then available did not establish that she was involved in trafficking.
The judge held that Article 8 of the EU’s 2011 trafficking directive did not itself require prosecutors to drop charges. It allowed national authorities not to prosecute or penalise trafficking victims for offences they were compelled to commit as a direct consequence of trafficking. As he found trafficking had not been established, Lin’s challenge to the directive’s implementation fell away.
The remaining drugs charges were due to go to a fresh trial on 29 April 2014. The judge stressed that his findings in the constitutional inquiry were not to pre-determine factual issues for that trial. He refused the relief sought and concluded that Lin was lawfully detained.