Reported Case

Duncan Lewis Solicitors successfully represented the Claimant in a judicial review challenging the Home Office's Negative Reasonable Grounds (NRG) decision under the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), relating to the Claimant’s experiences of human trafficking in Libya.

Fordham J’s Judgment

Fordham J has given useful guidance on the following matters:

• The requirement for, and meaning of, “anxious scrutiny” in decisions that affect fundamental rights and their review by the court. In essence, higher quality reasoning (evidenced by more-detailed reasons) is required from the decision maker and a closer inquiry is required by the court in its review. There is a narrower range of outcomes that can be deemed reasonable, with the decision maker to be afforded less latitude than a decision that merely requires reasonableness but not “anxious scrutiny”.
• A grant of refugee status does not make a trafficking claim academic, nor does a trafficking claimant have to identify a concrete support benefit in order to be entered into the NRM.

• A reasonable amount for a successful legally-aided party to be paid on account is 60%. Practitioners will know it can be difficult to recover more than 50% on account prior to a detailed assessment of costs. This heightens cash-flow issues in an already stretched industry. Fordham J noted that legally aided parties do not file statements of costs because summary assessment is not available, and a Claimant’s representatives are under a professional duty not to bill for more than the work that has been done, so 60% is reasonable.

The Facts

The Claimant’s exploitation took place in Libya in 2021. Having fled from his home country of Sudan on account of his persecution there at the hands of the Rapid Support Forces, he was approached by Libyans who offered him employment on an olive farm. He was taken to the farm by car along with three other Sudanese people. Upon arrival, he and the others were imprisoned in degrading conditions without access to a toilet or fresh water. He was subjected to forced labour over a period of three months, during which he experienced and witnessed violence and torture. Three months later, once the olive harvest was over, he was allowed to leave.

The Claimant entered the United Kingdom by small boat in November 2022 and immediately claimed asylum upon arrival. Importantly, in his screening interview he explained that he had passed through Libya, a known red flag country for human trafficking. He answered ‘No’ to the infamous exploitation question in the screening interview. He was not, however, asked further questions about his experiences in Libya, nor was he referred into the NRM.

A further opportunity for the Home Office to refer him into the NRM was missed when he applied for asylum support in December 2022. In the form, the Claimant stated that he had suffered torture in prison in Libya. Nonetheless, this did not trigger a referral.

His asylum claim was not progressed beyond the screening interview. In April 2023, the Home Office issued a first notice of intent to treat his asylum claim as inadmissible on the basis that he had travelled through safe countries on the way to the UK. In May 2024, the Claimant was detained on reporting and transferred to Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, with a second notice of intent was served two weeks after his initial detention.

After the Claimant’s solicitors had taken initial instructions and noted various trafficking indicators in his account, they requested that the Home Office as first responder make a referral. An NRM referral form was completed on 16 May 2024. The Claimant’s solicitors were also making requests to healthcare in detention to conduct a Rule 35(3) assessment given the Claimant’s disclosure of being tortured in Sudan and Libya, which received no response.

On 20 May 2024, a Negative Reasonable Grounds decision was issued, rejecting the Claimant’s trafficking claim on the basis that it was lacking in detail.

Bail was granted in principle by the First-tier Tribunal on 30 May 2024, and the Claimant was released from detention on 1 June 2024. He was invited to a substantive asylum interview in August 2024, and was granted asylum just four days after the interview, nearly two years since he had claimed asylum on arriving in the UK.

Meanwhile, the Claimant’s solicitors sought disclosure of materials referred to in the NRG Decision. Redacted disclosure was eventually provided towards the end of June 2024, with the Claimant’s challenging the validity of those redactions. The Home Office maintained these redactions, which would eventually be criticised by Fordham J.

In July 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors sent a Letter Before Claim challenging the NRG Decision and requesting it be reconsidered, supported by a 20-page expert report from Dr Aidan McQuade. The Home Office responded maintaining the NRG decision and refusing to reconsider it.

The judicial review claim was issued challenging both the original NRG Decision and the Home Office’s Letter of Response in which it refused to reconsider the original decision.

Permission was initially refused before it was eventually granted at a renewal hearing.

The NRG Decision

Fordham J identified the following errors in the NRG decision:

1. Trafficking indicators: The Court found a fundamental inconsistency in decision maker’s reliance on the First Responder, who claimed there were no indicators of trafficking, and the decision maker’s conclusion that the account met the three constituent elements of trafficking (action, means, and for the purpose of exploitation).
2. Level of detail: The decision maker criticised the Claimant for an alleged lack of detail without identifying what was apparently missing.
3. Supporting evidence: The decision maker pointed to a lack of supporting evidence, and listed various examples of what supporting evidence might look like, but irrationally failed to answer the question of whether or not the Claimant ought to be expected to provide it in his particular circumstances.
4. Timing: The Court found that the Home Office placed unjustified weight on the timing of the Claimant’s disclosure of exploitation, failing to consider that delayed disclosure is common among victims of trafficking. Fordham J made the point that people often only make trafficking claims once they have access to a lawyer, as was the case here.

Fordham J made a quashing order in respect of the NRG decision, requiring the Home Office to make the decision afresh, taking into account all relevant and available material. The anonymity and reporting restrictions previously in place were also discharged finding no justification for continued anonymity.

Read the full Judgement here: R (Al Noor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 922 (Admin).

The Instructing Team

Nicholas Hughes is a solicitor in the Public Law department He has extensive experience in immigration and asylum, judicial review, and public inquiries.

For advice or assistance on any public law matter, contact Nicholas via email at nicholashu@duncanlewis.com, or by telephone at 02031141138.

Dominic Chambers is a Trainee Solicitor within the Public Law department. Dominic works under the supervision of Lewis Kett and Director Toufique Hossain. Dominic is experienced in representing individuals in judicial review claims challenging decisions of public bodies including the government and local authorities. He also frequently represents individuals in their immigration matters including asylum and trafficking claims.

Contact Dominic via email at DominicCh@duncanlewis.com, or by telephone at 02031141288.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors Public Law team, ranked in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 UK directories, has a broad practice representing both privately and publicly funded (legal aid) clients in matters involving immigration; asylum and human rights and deportation matters, with a niche practice in immigration and civil liberties claimant judicial review matters. They have significant practice in challenging delays in Home Office decision-making, unlawful immigration detention cases with high net claims for damages and challenging immigration removal decisions, particularly third country removal cases.

Find full details of this case on Bailii’s website here.