Debunking Myths: What We Keep Seeing in Court - and Why It Matters

Why we started Myth-Busting Monday

Between October and December 2025, we began sharing a series of weekly posts on LinkedIn under Myth-Busting Monday. They were short, deliberately simple and drawn directly from things we hear in real cases - statements made in interviews, submissions or evidence to suggest that someone couldn’t possibly be a victim of modern slavery or exploitation.

They weren’t hypothetical. They weren’t exaggerated. They were familiar.

We shared them not to criticise individuals, but because these assumptions come up repeatedly - and because when they go unchallenged, they shape decisions with very real consequences for the people at the centre of cases.

The problem with surface judgments

One of the most persistent challenges in modern slavery cases is how quickly conclusions are drawn from surface-level observations.

A person smiled in a photograph.
They spent Christmas with their family.
They went on holiday.
They had a relationship.
They were able to move freely.
They complied with instructions.
They said “no comment”.

Each of these has been used, at some point, to argue that exploitation did not occur.

The difficulty is not that these facts are untrue. It’s that they are incomplete.

Exploitation does not strip people of their humanity. Victims continue to live complex, messy lives. They maintain relationships. They experience moments of joy. They comply, adapt, minimise risk and try to survive. None of this negates coercion, and none of it should be read in isolation.

Why “normal life” doesn’t disprove exploitation

Across the posts we shared, a common thread emerged: the assumption that exploitation must look extreme, constant and all-consuming to be real.

In practice, we often see the opposite.

Exploitive control frequently coexists with apparent normality. Limited freedoms may be granted to maintain compliance. Time with family can be permitted to reduce suspicion. Financial transactions may appear stable while debt bondage persists underneath. Movement may be unrestricted while threats, surveillance or psychological control remain firmly in place.

This is not a contradiction, it is how coercion often functions.

When these realities are misunderstood, behaviours shaped by fear or survival are reframed as choice. Credibility is undermined. And exploitation is missed.

The role of education and professional curiosity

This is where education - not just awareness - becomes essential.

Understanding modern slavery requires more than knowing the legal definition. It requires professional curiosity: asking why someone acted in a certain way, what pressures they were under at the time, and how power, dependency and fear shaped their decisions.

It also requires resisting the pull of the easiest explanation.

Assumptions are often comforting. They tidy up complexity. But in cases involving exploitation, they can do real harm. Evidence does not interpret itself, it only gains meaning when placed in context: psychological, social, cultural and situational.

Without that context, we risk mistaking adaptation for consent, compliance for autonomy, and silence for choice.

Looking ahead

As we move into the new year, our hope is simple: that we encounter these assumptions less often in our work.

Where they do arise, we will continue to challenge them; carefully, constructively and evidence-based - because fair outcomes depend on a proper understanding of lived experience, not surface judgment.

The weekly posts we shared over autumn were a starting point. The wider point remains the same: modern slavery is complex, uncomfortable and rarely obvious. If we want justice systems - and other decision-making spaces - to respond fairly, we have to be willing to look beyond what is easiest to believe.