The wife of a disabled man who was partly blind and his carer have been found guilty of slavery in a case believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
Tom Somerset-How, 40, was “treated like property” by Sarah Somerset-How, 49, and George Webb, 50, who were having an affair behind his back.
A trial heard how the victim was held like a “prisoner in his own home” in Chichester, West Sussex, where he was cut off from his loved ones and was in effect treated like a slave.
Almost blind Mr Somerset-How has cerebral palsy and requires 24 hour care, but the pair abandoned him in his bed for the vast majority of the time.
He was not able to brush his teeth for a year and was allowed a shower once a week.
He eventually raised the alarm sparking a rescue operation which the court heard was akin to a “hostage extraction”.
His wife and carer were charged under modern slavery legislation and today found guilty of holding a person in slavery or servitude.
During the trial, the couple's lawyers attempted to have the slavery charges dismissed, arguing there was no evidence Mr Somerset How was being treated as a 'possession'.
Paul Cavin KC, prosecuting, said: "This statute was drafted broadly and for good reason, because in the past they had very narrow definitions.
“The Crown say that both slavery and servitude can be made here.
"It is servitude by coercion by keeping him in a position where he was providing a service. He was allowing them to live off him. By keeping him alive he provided them with a roof over their head.
"It is the use of him and effective imprisonment of him, keeping him away from his family, that allowed them to use his benefits. That is why this applies to both slavery and servitude.
"If there was no benefit to the defendants and they decided to have an affair and keep the partner in a room and he was disabled that would be slavery because it is a complete denial of autonomy. If they hadn't enslaved him, he would have dismissed Webb and maybe divorced his wife.
"This is a man who had all his autonomy taken away from him. Total ownership had been taken over him in a way that a master does over a dog when he puts him in the kitchen."
Attempting to have the charge dropped, Robert Bryan, George Webb's defence barrister, said: "Slavery can't just involve exploitation, it must be exploitation plus.
"There is no evidence from which an inference can be drawn that Tom was Mrs Somerset-How or Webb's possession.
"The essence of slavery is treating someone like an animal or object.
“What the Crown is attempting to do is to shoehorn a particularly unattractive case into slavery.
“We would have to be extremely careful because bad cases make bad law. The use of him for this money does not amount to slavery.
"Tom's rights had not been removed to the extent that he had been kept in slavery. He still had his human rights."
Rejecting the defence application, Judge Ashworth concluded: "There is ample evidence Tom was held as if he was a cattle or animal.
"The circumstances were just above survival. The defendants could utilise Tom so that Webb could continue to be employed and they could both stay at the address."
