High Court orders reinstatement of trafficking support in public order disqualification case

The High Court has ordered the Home Secretary to reinstate support to a potential victim of trafficking where the Home Secretary had made a public order disqualification and cancelled his support. The case is R (EPS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3462 (Admin).

The claimant arrived in the UK in February 2002. On 21 January 2025 he was convicted of immigration fraud and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. On 20 May 2025 a positive reasonable grounds (first stage) decision was made in respect of his claim to have been trafficked to the UK and been subject to forced labour. He was granted a recovery and reflection period of 30 days.

On 2 June 2025 the Home Office wrote to him advising that they were considering whether to disqualify him from receiving support because he is a foreign criminal, known as a public order disqualification. On 13 August 2025 the claimant was notified that a public order disqualification had been made and as a result, his recovery period and support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract were both stopped. Instead, he was provided with hotel accommodation only under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

A judicial review application was lodged along with an application for urgent interim relief for the reinstatement of his support. The Home Secretary asked that the claim be stayed behind R (on the application of ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin) (our write up is here). That case was decided on 17 December 2025, finding that the Home Secretary had been acting unlawfully.

The judge here noted that the judge in ABW has refused to stay the effect of the judgment pending a decision on the Home Secretary’s application for permission to appeal. The Home Secretary has indicated that she intends to renew the application to stay the effect of the judgment.

In light of the decision in ABW, the court held that “this claim presents a strong prima facie case. That seems to me to be the inescapable consequence of the judgment in ABW; in particular, the conclusions drawn by Morris J both on grounds 1 and 2 – especially on ground 2 in that case”.

The judgment in ABW was also held to relevant in considering the balance of convenience, given the decision under challenge here was based on guidance which had been held to be unlawful. The court said that “In those circumstances, I should need to see a powerful fact-based rationale for me to conclude that the balance of convenience nevertheless favours the refusal of reinstatement of that support pending trial of this claim”. Other important factors were that the Home Secretary had refused to grant the claimant section 95 support, and the fact that he would receive more focused support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract.

It was concluded that:

My overall conclusion is that the harm caused to the defendant and to the public interest in making an order that the claimant’s support under the MSVCC should be reinstated is clearly outweighed by the harm resulting to the claimant were I to refuse interim relief, in circumstances where there is, as things stand before me, a strong prima facie case in the claim that he advances by way of judicial review; and in the knowledge that the essential context of that claim is the defendant’s finding that there are reasonable grounds that the claimant is a victim of modern slavery.

The order for interim relief was made.