17 Jun Further Trafficking Survivor Awarded Compensation Having Been Left In Limbo Due To Unlawful Home Office Policy
Our client, a survivor or trafficking, has been awarded substantial compensation following the Home Office again applying a policy already held unlawful by the Courts.
Previous DPG clients brought the leading case JP and BS v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 3346 (Admin), which successfully challenged the lawfulness of the Home Office’s policy – called ‘the Scheduling Rule’ – where, for victims of trafficking also making an application for asylum, the Home Office did not determine the victim’s application for a residence permit under Article 14(1) of ECAT before making a decision on the asylum application.
The Court held that the Home Office breached the rights of our clients JP and BS under Article 14 (read with Articles 4, 8 and A1P1) of the ECHR, contrary Human Rights Act 1998, s6.
However, despite the Court finding that the Scheduling Rule policy discriminated against trafficking victims who also had applications for asylum, the Home Office has continued to apply that policy.
Our client had to bring a Judicial Review to challenge the unlawful application of the Scheduling Rule, her claim settled further to the Home Office conceding that it acted unlawfully in applying the scheduling rule despite it having been found to be unlawful in JP and BS.
Our client’s case proceeded to a further hearing to establish the amount of damages payable to her for the breach of her rights which, during the long periods they remained in limbo, caused her financial loss and psychiatric injury.
The Home Office eventually settled our client’s case, awarding substantial compensation.
Other victims of trafficking who have been affected by this unlawful policy will need to press their individual cases in order to secure recourse. Unfortunately the Home Office continues to apply an unlawful policy in this respect, but it can be challenged on the basis of JP and BS.
The barrister instructed in the damages claim was Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers, and in the Judicial Review the barristers instructed were Chris Buttler and Zoe McCallum of Matrix Chambers, instructed by DPG partners Adam Hundt and Ugo Hayter, who were assisted by trainee Althia Stephens and paralegal Bryony Goodesmith.