The trafficking decision and missed deadline
Our client had previously received a negative Reasonable Grounds decision. This is the first stage in the UK’s process for identifying victims of trafficking, known as the National Referral Mechanism. At this stage, the Home Office must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a person may be a victim of trafficking.
A negative decision meant that the Home Office did not accept that there were sufficient grounds to treat him as a potential victim. This is an important stage, as a positive decision can lead to access to support and protection whilst a fuller investigation is carried out.
Because our client had been unable to find a solicitor at the time, he missed the deadline to request a reconsideration of that decision. He had attempted to challenge it himself by submitting his own representations, but these were refused.
When we became involved, we applied for an exceptional out of time reconsideration request. This is a request asking the Home Office to accept a late challenge outside of the usual time limits. Such requests can be allowed in certain circumstances, particularly where a person is vulnerable or has not previously had legal representation.
In support of this request, we provided detailed medical evidence of our client’s vulnerability and set out evidence supporting his trafficking account. We also highlighted that he had previously been unrepresented and explained that any future removal attempt would raise serious legal concerns given his medical condition and trafficking claim.
Despite this, the Home Office refused to accept the out of time request.
Removal directions and urgent risk
Shortly after this refusal, the Home Office issued removal directions to Mauritius. Removal directions are formal instructions which set a date and time for a person to be removed from the UK.
In this case, only the minimum notice period of five working days was given. This meant our client was at immediate risk of removal, despite clear medical evidence that he was unfit to fly and at high risk of suicide or self-harm.
This was particularly concerning given his history. A previous removal attempt had already resulted in a serious self-harm incident due to distress, meaning there was a real and immediate risk to his safety if removal went ahead.
How we challenged the decision
Urgent legal action was required to protect our client.
We sent two Pre-Action Protocol letters to the Home Office. This is the first formal step in bringing a judicial review, which is the legal process used to challenge decisions made by public bodies.
Our legal grounds of challenge included:
- A failure to properly consider the medical evidence, including evidence that our client was unfit to fly and at high risk of suicide
- A failure to follow the Home Office’s own policies
- Breaches of our client’s fundamental rights, including his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, and protections relating to slavery and forced labour
At the same time, we submitted further representations in support of a positive Reasonable Grounds decision. These relied on medical evidence showing that our client’s mental health and physical injuries were consistent with his trafficking account.
We also addressed concerns raised about inconsistencies and delayed disclosure. It is well recognised that victims of trafficking may struggle to recount their experiences consistently, particularly where they have experienced trauma. Delays in disclosure are also common and should not automatically undermine credibility.
In addition, we provided updated medical evidence to the detention centre and requested a new Rule 35 assessment. A Rule 35 report is a medical assessment used in immigration detention to identify individuals whose health may be seriously affected by continued detention.
We sent extensive evidence to the Home Office and informed them on multiple occasions that we would be forced to issue urgent judicial review proceedings if no response was received. Despite this, the Home Office did not respond.
Urgent judicial review and outcome
On the day before our client’s scheduled removal, we issued urgent judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.
We argued that our client was unfit to fly, that removal would place him at real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, and that he had an outstanding trafficking claim which had not been properly considered.
We also applied for an urgent injunction to prevent removal. An injunction is a court order that can stop an action from taking place, in this case stopping the removal before it could go ahead.
Just hours before the scheduled removal, the Home Office accepted our client’s out of time Reasonable Grounds reconsideration request. They also confirmed that the removal directions had been cancelled due to the outstanding trafficking claim, although they did not formally accept all of the legal arguments we had raised.
What happened next
As a result of this outcome, our client was able to remain in the UK and have his trafficking claim properly reconsidered.
Following our request for a new Rule 35 assessment, it was concluded that continued detention would have a significant negative impact on his mental health. He was subsequently released from immigration detention on bail after five months.
We also secured emergency support for him under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract. This provides practical and financial support to individuals who are recognised as potential victims of trafficking.
This was the first time our client had access to legal representation and specialist support as a victim of trafficking.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the important link between removal decisions and trafficking claims. Where there is credible evidence of trafficking and vulnerability, it is essential that the Home Office properly considers those issues before taking steps to remove someone from the UK.
It also demonstrates the importance of medical evidence in cases involving vulnerable individuals, particularly where there is a risk of self-harm or suicide.
Finally, this case shows the significant challenges faced by unrepresented individuals. Without legal support, our client had been unable to effectively challenge decisions or access the protections available to him. Once legal representation was secured, urgent action was able to prevent removal and ensure his case was properly considered.
How we may be able to help others
If you or someone you know is in immigration detention, facing removal, or has experienced trafficking, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible.
Our Public Law and Human Rights team has experience supporting vulnerable individuals in urgent and complex situations. We can explain your rights clearly, challenge unlawful decisions, and take swift action where necessary.
Call us today on 0808 239 5461 or request a callback to find out how we may be able to help.
