THE victim in an alleged modern slavery case had ‘plenty of clothes,’ according to the defence.

Stephen Thomas, representing Ruta Stankeviciene, one of three defendants in the modern slavery case at Newport Crown Court, claimed that the alledged victim ‘chose to go to work in dirty clothes’ despite having plenty at the Newport house he was staying at.

The man, a Latvian national, alleges that he was kept at the house in Capel Crescent, Newport, where Jokubas Stanekvicius, 59, and Ms Stankeviciene, 57, were living.

Both along with Normunds Freibergs, 40, of Morley Close, Newport, deny requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour.  Freibergs also denies arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to exploitation, and acting as an unlicensed gangmaster.

The man confirmed that he had student debts in Latvia when questioned by Mr Thomas on August 3 and said that he had initially gone to Germany for a gap year before returning to complete his studies in Latvia. However when he was to return, he was told the course no longer existed and he would have to ‘qualify with a different course.’

Mr Thomas said that the man had debts in Germany as well, which he denied, stating he had phone bills, but he paid them off on time.

The man also said that he had begun to pay off his debts in Latvia.

Mr Thomas questioned as to why the man chose to come to the UK when he had previously stated in court that he was happy with the wages he was being paid in Germany. He responded that he was unhappy with the living situation and there was no guarantee there would be a different job available, so he came to the UK.

MORE NEWS:

Mr Thomas then focused his cross-examination on the living arrangements while Mr Rolands was living at Capel Crescent.

Mr Rolands agreed the room was of adequate size and was warm but said he was unable to keep his possessions with him because Stankeviciene said that “they smelt.”

Mr Rolands alleges that the trio took his passport, laptop and mobile phone and his clothes and would not let him wash the clothes he had.

“They took my phone and pawned it and they took my laptop and pawned it, but that was bought back,” he told the court. He also said that most of his clothes were kept at Freibergs’ house in the cellar because “Ruta didn’t like them and said they smelt.”

When asked why the clothes weren’t washed and why they smelt, Mr Rolands said that he washed them in Germany but he had also been travelling and they may not have been washed out properly as he worked with meat, so there could have been some residue left.

He also said that when he would work in the chicken factory, he was given protective clothing of overalls, shoes and a hat which he wore, but said that the liquids would seep through onto his clothing he wore underneath and when he would arrive back at the property, he was unable to wash them as he was not allowed to use the washing machine or wash the clothes in the bathroom and that Stankeviciene refused to wash them for him.

He also alleges that the trio sold a lot of his clothes but admitted while under cross examination by Matthew Roberts, representing Freibergs, that he was given sums of money to purchase some clothing.

The incidents are alleged to have occurred in 2017. The trial continues.