Looking just at the human trafficking as distinct from the prostitution, I think it is fine the way it is, because for one thing, the case law has also indicated that in terms of the offence itself there is a big difference between the application of human trafficking and, in contrast, procuring without the aggravating factors that are generally present with human trafficking. In that way, I think it's fine.
The only thing I would add is an exception to remove the mandatory minimum, because I think the mandatory minimum prevents those who are less culpable from having sentences that are more aligned with their actual culpability. Also, there should be one to allow a defence of duress when there is some psychological harm, but not in the same way as is currently stated in the criminal law, which requires that if there is an opportunity for the person to call the police, than the person is no longer able to afford themselves the application of a duress defence. I think there should be a consideration for those who may be under a psychological duress which still means that they may not call the police even though there's an opportunity to call the police or to seek protection.
There are people who plead guilty to human trafficking just to get the minimum, but those who go to trial can easily, if there are the aggravating circumstances that have been defined by the criminal law and by the code and if those are presented...I can let you know that those people will be convicted.
That is why plea bargaining sometimes works in getting to the lesser offence, because sometimes you'll have the victim testifying at preliminary hearings and asserting things. If the victim is consistent and looks to be holding up well under any cross-examination, that is something that probably won't go to trial in the superior court, because the evidence is enough to convince somebody that we have a very strong witness here and you're not going to be successful at trial.