High Court finds three Home Office decisions refusing to reinstate trafficking support were unlawful

The High Court has ruled that three Home Office decisions, each of which refused the claimant’s request for reinstated trafficking support via the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract, were unlawful. Judgment was handed down in R (ETX) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 294 (Admin) on 12 February 2025. 

Background

The claimant’s background is set out in §13 – 35 of the judgment. In brief, he is a survivor of modern slavery, having been held hostage for the purposes of forced labour in Libya. Since his arrival in the UK in May 2022, he has been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, and experts recommended that he receive trauma-focused therapy for at least two years given the severity of his symptoms. He received a positive reasonable grounds decision (the first stage in the trafficking identification process) dated 10 June 2022, and subsequently a positive conclusive grounds (the second stage) decision dated 15 August 2022.

During his recovery period (the time between a positive reasonable grounds decision and a conclusive grounds decision), the claimant was entitled to receive support via the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract, but his support worker failed to provide him with advocacy to access vital services, such as mental health services and financial assistance to attend recovery appointments and English language classes.

Even though his recovery needs had not been met, the claimant was exited from the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract support service in November 2022. Neither he nor his solicitors were given a contemporaneous copy of the decision to exit him, so he was unable to exercise his right to request reconsideration of that decision within the 28-day timeframe (as per the Recovery Needs Assessment policy).

Requesting reinstated trafficking support

The claimant asked the Home Office to reinstate his support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract to allow him to begin his recovery, in line with §8.34 – 8.36 of the statutory guidance issued under s.49(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Home Office refused this request in a three-line email saying that support was available to him via the Reach In service, despite this service being limited to “information and signposting”.

The central issue in the claim was whether the Home Office lawfully concluded that the claimant’s trafficking-related recovery needs could be met via the Reach In service, or whether his needs were such that he required the provision of comprehensive trafficking support via the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract. The claimant contended throughout that his needs exceeded what was available via the Reach In service, particularly his mental health needs (which were directly linked to his experiences as a survivor of modern slavery).

During the course of the litigation, the Home Office made two further decisions to refuse the claimant’s request for reinstated trafficking support, both of which cited the availability of Reach In support as a reason for the decisions.

Judgment

Upper Tribunal Judge O’Connor, sitting as a High Court Judge, found that the Home Office’s decisions failed to take into account and/or contradicted the claimant’s evidence (particularly the medical evidence) to such a degree that they were “perverse” (§63) and “legally flawed” (§70). He concluded that the Home Office’s decisions that the Reach In service was a suitable alternative capable of meeting the claimant’s recovery needs were irrational (§105, 109).

Judge O’Connor found that, while the Home Office has a discretion as to whether to reinstate trafficking support, this discretion must be exercised on a “principled, lawful, and evidenced basis” (§106).

The judge also made a useful observation concerning the claimant’s grant of refugee status, which was made during the course of the litigation. The Home Office relied on this grant of status and the claimant’s resulting entitlement to welfare benefits as a further reason to refuse to reinstate his trafficking support. The judge found that the grant of refugee status did not answer the claimant’s case, and observed that the Home Office had presented no evidence that his mental health needs were ameliorated by this grant (§108).

The court concluded by finding that all three Home Office decisions were “flawed by legal error” in their consideration of the claimant’s need for Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract support to meet his mental health recovery needs (§148).

Conclusion

The author hopes that this judgment reminds the Home Office to undertake a thorough and lawful assessment of an individual’s evidence when making decisions on the reinstatement of trafficking support, particularly where the person has mental health needs that have not been met.

The claimant was represented by Grace Capel of Doughty Street Chambers, instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors.