News

Permission to apply for judicial review has been granted in a challenge to a Home Office decision that there were ‘no reasonable grounds’ to conclude that an asylum seeker was a victim of human trafficking. Permission was granted on 18th September 2020.

The claimant, ‘RY’, is a vulnerable Eritrean asylum seeker. The Home Office has accepted his account that when travelling to the UK from Eritrea, he was confined by agents against his will, deliberately denied adequate food, and regularly subjected to violence, all for the purpose of extracting money. Despite accepting this account, the Home Office disputes that this ill treatment meets the definition of “trafficking in human beings” set out in international law and reflected in the government’s national trafficking policy, alleging that he was not “exploited” by his captors.

RY challenges this decision, on the basis that the Home Office’s analysis of the “exploitation” element of the international definition of human trafficking was legally flawed. RY also alleges a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention and various failures of the Home Office to follow its own policy on trafficking.

Permission was granted on the papers by Margaret Obi sitting as a deputy of the High Court. While noting that the fact that the claim was brought out-of-time was “serious”, the deputy judge allowed the claimant’s application to extend time, taking into account his vulnerability, promptness of RY’s legal representative after legal aid funding was received, and the lack of prejudice to the Home Office. The deputy judge also granted anonymity.

RY is represented by public law trainee solicitor Gina Sarfo of the Dalston office. She is assisted by Alexander Shattock, of Landmark Chambers, who previously provided a pro bono opinion on merits.