Home Office U-turn over grants of leave to trafficking victims after legal challenge

In the absence of a reported decision on the matter (yet), we are writing to set out our recent experience and success in challenging Home Office refusals of leave to recognised victims of trafficking, in the hope that this will help others with similar cases.

Shortly before what was set to be the first substantive hearing challenging the refusal of an application for temporary permission to stay for victims of human trafficking and slavery (‘VTS leave’), the Home Office abruptly changed their position, agreeing to withdraw their refusal and reconsider the claimant’s application.

The case, brought by Duncan Lewis Solicitors on behalf of YX, was the most advanced of several ongoing challenges to the Home Office’s refusal to grant VTS leave to victims of trafficking. The claim challenged the lawfulness of the Home Office’s decision-making, including failures to properly assess relevant evidence, to comply with its investigative duties, and to correctly apply the statutory criteria under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Legal framework

VTS leave is designed to offer confirmed victims of modern slavery and trafficking a period of stay to recover from any physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation. It can also be granted on the basis that the individual is required to remain the UK to seek compensation or co-operate with a public authority, for example with a police investigation into their trafficking.

Section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 sets out the criteria that need to be applied when deciding whether to grant a person VTS leave. Crucially, both the wording of the statute and the Home Office’s guidance make clear that decision-makers should adopt a broad, holistic and “victim-centred” approach to deciding whether a person might need a grant of leave to assist their recovery from exploitation.

Case facts

The claimant, YX, is a highly vulnerable victim of human trafficking and modern slavery. He received a positive conclusive grounds decision as a result of his experiences of kidnap for ransom and forced labour in Libya. YX has significant diagnosed mental health issues arising from his period of exploitation and would be unable to access the required treatment and support in his country of origin, Ethiopia, even if it was available there.

YX first submitted an application for VTS leave in early 2024. He was then caught in a (familiar to many practitioners) cycle of refusals and reconsideration requests, where the Home Office continually made refusal decisions which failed to properly consider the evidence put forward. YX challenged these decisions, the Home Office agreed to reconsider and then ultimately refused to grant leave again.

Following the 6 February 2025 refusal, YX issued judicial review proceedings to challenge the Home Office’s decision to refuse to grant him VTS. Permission to proceed was granted on all grounds by Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara, and the case was listed for a substantive hearing on 12 December 2025. This was understood to be the first judicial review of a VTS refusal to reach a substantive hearing.

At all stages, the Home Office had upheld its refusal and defended its position. However, shortly before the final hearing, the Home Office abruptly changed its position and agreed, by consent order, to reconsider whether to grant YX VTS in light of the grounds of challenge that had been raised in the judicial review.

Basis of legal challenge

YX challenged the lawfulness of the refusal decision on the following grounds:

• The decision was irrational and/or failed to have regard to relevant considerations;
• The decision-maker failed to discharge their Tameside duty of ensuring that they had sufficient relevant material to make the s.65(4)-(5) NABA 2022 assessment; and
• The decision-maker misapplied the test in s.65(2)(a) NABA 2022 by adopting an overly narrow approach.

It was argued that despite the broad wording used in s.65(2)(a), the Home Office failed to consider the request VTS leave holistically. They did not give appropriate weight to all relevant factors and all relevant evidence.

This included the practical effect of YX remaining in the UK without status, why having leave would improve his mental health and increase his ability to benefit from the required treatment, and why he would be at increased risk of re-trafficking if leave was not granted. One illustration of these failures was the absence of any proper consideration of the wider barriers to YX accessing treatment in Ethiopia.

As part of this challenge, YX’s solicitors prepared detailed witness statements with prominent anti-trafficking NGOs, support organisations, clinicians and academics, addressing the significant recovery needs of victims of trafficking, the importance of immigration status and the risk of re-trafficking.

The consent order specifically notes that the Home Office agrees to reconsider the refusal “in light of” these grounds of challenge and the permission decision. This case follows a previous group challenge brought by Duncan Lewis in 2024 (HHH & ors v SSHD (JR-2024-LON-001182)), on behalf of 12 clients refused VTS leave.

Those proceedings ended in late July 2024, after the Home Office agreed to review their policy in light of the concerns the applicants had raised. The Home Office additionally agreed to reconsider the applicants’ refusals of VTS leave, in addition to giving assurances regarding a large number of other clients who had not yet issued proceedings.

Wider significance

The Home Office’s sudden U-turn in this case represented a substantial victory for both YX and other victims of trafficking. We have seen many other decisions which similarly adopt an unlawfully narrow approach to deciding when to grant VTS leave.

The Home Office’s misapplication of the statutory criteria is resulting in large numbers of survivors of trafficking being denied the leave they are legally entitled to. This is deeply concerning, as it represents an institutional failure by the Home Office to adequately uphold their duties to vulnerable survivors of trafficking, as enshrined in domestic law and policy.

YX has set an important precedent which we hope will have far reaching impacts for other survivors seeking to recover from their exploitation, particularly given the recitals to the consent order note the grounds of challenge and the fact the Home Office has agreed to reconsider the decision as a consequence of these arguments.

YX was represented by solicitors Angelo Monni and Lily Parrot of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, with assistance from caseworkers Freya Wainstein and Beth Scott. Catherine Meredith of Doughty Street Chambers was instructed as counsel.