What does the rule change mean in practice?
This new rule changes what a person can do after receiving a negative decision under the National Referral Mechanism, whether that is at the Reasonable Grounds stage or the Conclusive Grounds stage (terms we explained in our recent UK–France returns article).
Before the change, people in this position could usually ask the Home Office to reconsider their case. That might be because new evidence had come to light, such as a medical report confirming trauma or a professional opinion supporting a trafficking disclosure. In some cases, they simply believed the decision had been made in error and needed to be looked at again.
The reconsideration process gave people a way to do this without going straight to court. It was an internal route that allowed caseworkers to re-examine the facts if there were good reasons to do so. It did not always result in the decision being changed, but it was a recognised part of the NRM system and often an important safeguard.
Now that option has been removed, but only for people who are facing removal from the UK to a country that has signed up to two international agreements:
In practice, once the Home Office has issued a removal notice or decision - and the country they’re being sent to has signed both treaties - the person loses the right to ask for reconsideration. That safeguard is switched off. The guidance does not name specific countries, but this includes most European countries and several others. This means many people currently at risk of removal will not be able to use the reconsideration process, even if new information becomes available.
What options are left?
People who are affected by the rule change may still be able to challenge decisions using legal routes outside the NRM. For example:
- Judicial review: This is a form of court action that looks at whether a decision was lawful. It can be used if someone believes the Home Office made a legal error when deciding their case.
- Injunctions: If someone is facing removal and there is not enough time for a full legal case to be heard, they may be able to apply to the court for an emergency order to stop the removal while the claim is looked at.
But these are external legal processes, which can be harder to access without legal support and often require fast, specialist advice. Our Public Law & Human Rights team is experienced in acting quickly in urgent removal cases, but we know not everyone is able to access legal help in time.
Why does this matter?
The reconsideration process has played a key role in many recent trafficking cases. Often, people don’t feel able to disclose what happened to them straight away. This can be because of trauma, fear, shame, or not understanding that what happened to them might qualify as trafficking or exploitation.
In our recent article on the UK-France returns agreement, we explained how late disclosures are common, especially where people haven’t had early legal advice. The courts have recognised that this doesn’t necessarily mean a claim is dishonest - just that it takes time for people to come forward.
By removing the option to ask for reconsideration, this rule change makes it harder for people to get those later disclosures looked at properly. It also puts more pressure on legal teams to act quickly and pursue court-based remedies instead.
Who can still ask for a reconsideration?
The new rule introduced in September 2025 doesn’t apply to everyone. Some people can still ask the Home Office to look again at their case after receiving a negative NRM decision.
You can still request reconsideration if:
- You haven’t been given a removal notice or decision yet
- Or, the country you’re being removed to is not signed up to both of the following agreements:
- The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT)
- The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
This means you might still have time to ask for reconsideration if you’re not facing removal at all, or if the country you're being removed to doesn't meet both of those conditions.
Even if you are being removed to a country that has signed both agreements, you might still be eligible, but only if the Home Office hasn’t yet issued a removal notice or removal decision.
So, timing really matters.
Once a removal notice or decision has been issued, that safeguard is switched off, and reconsideration is no longer an option.
If you're not sure whether this applies to you, it’s important to get legal advice from a Public Law & Human Rights experts, such as the ones here, at Simpson Millar, quickly. The earlier you act, the more options you’re likely to have.
What kind of evidence has been used in successful reconsideration requests?
Reconsideration requests have played a key role in identifying genuine victims of trafficking who were initially given a negative decision. This process has often allowed new or overlooked information to be properly assessed without needing to go to court.
The types of evidence that have led to successful reconsideration include:
- Medical reports confirming trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or other psychological impacts that relate to trafficking.
- Expert assessments from professionals who specialise in modern slavery, outlining indicators that were missed or not understood in the original decision.
- New witness statements or personal accounts that explain how and why certain details were not disclosed earlier.
- Evidence of coercion or control by traffickers that explains inconsistencies or gaps in the person’s story.
- Court findings in other proceedings (such as criminal or immigration hearings) that support a person’s account.
The Home Office guidance makes clear that all relevant information must be taken into account - even if it is submitted later - and that decisions must align with the Statutory Guidance.
Although the new rule limits this safeguard in some cases, this type of evidence can still be used in court-based challenges, such as judicial review.
‘’This change risks shutting the door on many genuine victims of trafficking who come forward late because of trauma or fear,” says Shalini Patel, our Head of Public Law & Human Rights at Simpson Millar. “Reconsideration requests are an important safeguard that allow new evidence to be reviewed without immediate court action. We’re concerned that removing that route for those impacted by the policy change will make it harder for survivors to have their voices heard.
Our team continues to help people challenge unfair trafficking decisions and protect their rights through urgent legal action where needed’’
