HHB was represented by Emma Fitzsimons of the Garden Court Public Law and Immigration Law Teams, instructed by Bryony Goodesmith and Nakita Hedges at Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors.
The Home Office has conceded a claim for judicial review on the day of trial, brought by a vulnerable victim of trafficking in relation to the Home Office’s refusal to reinstate his trafficking support.
Article 12 of European Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT), given effect in the UK through the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance, provides that victims of trafficking are entitled to specialist trafficking support arising from their recovery needs. The Statutory Guidance recognises that every victim’s recovery journey is different, and some victims’ needs may be complex and take a long time to resolve.
In practice, this support is delivered through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (‘MSVCC’). The MSVCC is intended to operate “as a bridge, to lift adult victims out of a situation of exploitation and to set them on a pathway to rebuilding their lives.”
In recognition of the need for individualised and victim-centred assessment, the Statutory Guidance provides for the possibility of a confirmed victim of trafficking, who has exited the main MSVCC support service, to be considered for re-entry for MSVCC support. MSVCC support can include the advocacy and support of a specialist support worker (including for access to specialist services e.g. mental health); accommodation; material assistance; financial support; translation and interpretation services.
HHB is an accepted victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced labour in Libya, during which time he was subjected to torture, which has caused lasting physical and mental health trauma. The Home Office accepted that he had in fact been trafficked in a positive Conclusive Grounds decision, and thereafter sought to exit him from the MSVCC. HHB sought re-entry on the basis that he had outstanding recovery needs, and these could not be met by other services, or “Reach-In,” which is limited to signposting. This request was tailored to his individual needs, and included supporting and expert evidence.
HHB brought judicial proceedings in January 2024, challenging the failure to lawfully decide his request for re-entry, including on the basis that the decision was inadequately reasoned and did not lawfully assess his need for MSVCC support.
At the start of the trial before the High Court, the Home Office accepted that supporting evidence (served on the evening before trial) extensively setting out HHB’s recovery needs had not been considered by the decision maker in their brief decision rejecting HHB’s request to be re-entered into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). This evidence contradicted the Home Office’s pleadings and witness evidence. In light of the new evidence disclosed at the start of the hearing, the Home Office conceded the judicial review in HHB’s favour, agreeing to withdraw the decision and reconsider the request for re-entry within 10 days.