When the Appropriate Adult is the Exploiter

One of the most concerning issues we have encountered in recent modern slavery casework is the presence of exploiters within safeguarding processes.

We recently worked on a case involving a child arrested in connection with suspected criminal activity linked to exploitation. During the police interview, the child’s “appropriate adult” (AA), i.e. the person responsible for safeguarding and supporting them throughout their detention and interview, was involved in a drug network and an alleged exploiter.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this happen. Years ago, we encountered another case involving a child victim of exploitation whose appropriate adult also appeared closely connected to those involved in the exploitation. These cases raise serious questions about safeguarding practice and how exploitation is understood within custody settings.

What is an Appropriate Adult?

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), children and vulnerable adults in police custody are entitled to support from an appropriate adult during key stages of detention and interview.

The role exists to safeguard the welfare and rights of the detained person, ensure they understand what is happening, facilitate communication and support effective participation. Appropriate adults are not there to provide legal advice or interfere with the investigation itself – their role is purely protective.

For children, this role is often carried out by a parent, guardian, family member, social worker or trained volunteer. The system depends on the basic assumption that the adult present is acting in the child’s best interests.

Nevertheless, PACE Code C requires custody officers to consider whether an appropriate adult is suitable and capable of safeguarding the interests of the detained child. This is particularly important in cases involving potential exploitation, given that controlling adults may present as relatives, carers or trusted figures.

Such risks have been recognised judicially. In V.C.L. and A.N. v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) highlighted the heightened safeguarding obligations owed to potential child victims of trafficking and specifically recognised the risk that an appropriate adult could be connected to traffickers or those involved in the exploitation.

The safeguarding failure

In the recent case we worked on, the child informed police that the appropriate adult was their uncle. The child was already open to social care. At minimum, this should have prompted basic safeguarding checks such as contact with social care to clarify family relationships, explore known concerns and provide broader context around the child’s circumstances. Instead, the individual masquerading as the child’s uncle was permitted to sit through the interview process without sufficient scrutiny.

Exploitation often operates through relationships that appear legitimate from the outside. Exploiters may present as relatives, older peers, mentors or family friends. Children themselves may refer to their perpetrators using familial terms such as uncle, brother or cousin, either symbolically or because those relationships have become psychologically significant.

Where exploitation indicators exist, professionals cannot rely solely on labels or assumptions about family connection. Safeguarding requires curiosity.

The impact on disclosure and evidence

A recurring misunderstanding in exploitation cases is the belief that police interviews provide a straightforward or reliable account of events. In reality, disclosure is shaped by fear, loyalty, dependency and control.

Children who may already fear repercussions from exploiters are unlikely to openly discuss coercion, violence or exploitation while sitting beside someone connected to the exploitation. Even where no explicit threats are made, the presence of that individual fundamentally changes the environment in which the interview takes place.

The appropriate adult role is supposed to create safety. In these circumstances, it risks doing the opposite. This has implications far beyond the interview itself. Early police accounts often become foundational evidence relied upon throughout the rest of the case. They shape charging decisions, prosecution strategy, credibility assessments, sentencing and later safeguarding responses. Where disclosure is constrained, the effects can persist long after the interview ends.

As recognised in V.C.L. and A.N., failures during the early investigative stages of exploitation cases can have lasting consequences for fairness and the ability to secure evidence relevant to the child’s defence and protection.

Exploitation and "trusted adults"

Our case highlights a broader issue within child criminal exploitation – that exploiters are not easily identifiable and authorities are not doing the difficult work necessary to identify them. Public narratives often imagine exploitation as involving obvious gang members or strangers. Police narratives, despite training to the contrary, are often the same.

In practice, control frequently takes place within existing relationships and community structures and trust is the mechanism through which exploitation develops. This is why safeguarding processes must move beyond procedural box-ticking.

The question should not be based solely on whether the adult is willing to attend, but on whether the adult is safe and appropriate in the context of the child’s circumstances.

The tension between investigation and safeguarding

Custody environments focus on investigation and procedural progression. For exploited children, however, they are also safeguarding environments. Where exploitation is not actively considered from the outset, safeguarding risks can become secondary to evidential processes. It is important to remember that a child entering custody may simultaneously be:

•    A suspect;
•    A potential victim of exploitation, and;
•    Someone operating under ongoing coercion or fear.

If professionals engage only with the first of those identities, critical safeguarding opportunities will be missed. 

Final reflections

Modern slavery and child criminal exploitation involves subtle forms of control, dependency and fear. The safeguarding systems designed to protect children must be capable of recognising this, particularly within criminal justice environments.

The appropriate adult system exists to safeguard children during some of the most vulnerable moments they experience. Where perpetrators of exploitation are able to occupy that role without scrutiny, this can have profound consequences for children, evidence and justice outcomes alike.