High Court judgment on MSVCC re-entry for survivor of modern slavery

Photograph of the front aspect of the Royal Courts of Justice with a blue sky in the background.

12 Feb High Court judgment on MSVCC re-entry for survivor of modern slavery

Posted at 11:12h in Adam Hundt, Bryony Goodesmith, Judicial review & public law, Nakita Hedges, Victims of trafficking by Catherine

In a judgment handed down on 12 February 2025 the High Court has found that the Home Office unlawfully refused to ‘re-enter’ our client – a survivor of modern slavery – to the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”) to receive the support he needs to assist him to recover.

The central issue in this judicial review was whether the Home Office lawfully concluded that our client’s trafficking-related recovery needs could be met via the provision of Reach In support, which is limited to “information and signposting”, or whether he required re-entry to the NRM to access support of substance funded by Home Office under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (‘MSVCC’). It was our client’s case that Reach In support is inadequate to meet his recovery needs and that the Home Office “failed to take account of relevant matters, took account of irrelevant matters, and misdirected herself as to the terms of her policies”. The High Court agreed.

Our client fled Sudan and made his way to Libya in 2018. In Libya, an armed group kidnapped him and held him hostage for ransom. Our client was unable to pay the ransom, so was forced to work and subjected to torture during this time. He managed to escape and make his way to the UK in May 2022. He was detained on arrival and informed that he was being considered for removal to Rwanda.

Despite being a recognised victim of trafficking, having received a positive Reasonable Grounds decision in June 2022, his circumstances in detention meant he did not receive the support he was entitled to during his “recovery period”: in particular assistance applying for counselling mental health support services, safe accommodation, engaging with his immigration solicitors, and financial assistance accessing education. Instead, his recovery was prolonged, and his mental health deteriorated whilst being held in detention and having the threat of being removed to Rwanda lingering over him. Our client had extensive evidence to demonstrate he suffered from PTSD and was a suicide risk, which was recorded in his Initial Risk Assessment, and it was indicated that he should be referred for specialist counselling with the Helen Bamber Foundation or Freedom from Torture. This did not happen.

Our client received a Conclusive Grounds decision in August 2022, confirming his status as a victim of trafficking. The Home Office has a duty to ensure our client can access support for his physical, psychological and social recovery needs. However, a flawed Recovery Needs Assessment meant that in November 2022, our client was unlawfully ‘exited’ from the NRM and his MSVCC support was terminated without considering his ongoing need for support. The Defendant did not provide our client with a copy of the decision to terminate his support, so he could not exercise his right to request reconsideration under that policy.

Our client had a right to request re-entry into the NRM so he could access treatment and begin his journey to recovery. DPG assisted him with these requests and to apply for judicial review of the Home Office decisions, but he was refused re-entry on three separate occasions, despite extensive evidence and medical reports being submitted with the requests and throughout these proceedings.

It came to light in the Home Office’s submissions in August 2024 that our client was provided with Reach-In support in May 2024 which is a service limited to “information and signposting”, rather than assisting our client to access treatment for his mental health. This was unknown to DPG, and our client later instructed that he did not know he was being contacted by a support worker as an interpreter was not provided, he was only briefly contacted on a few occasions, and he was not provided any assistance during this time. Additionally, it was disclosed that our client’s support worker undertook a MSVCC Full Risk Assessment on 16 May 2024 and recorded that our client was self-harming, but no action was taken to support our client.

After being granted refugee status on 6 August 2024, our client was evicted from his Home Office accommodation in September 2024 and made homeless. Our client’s Reach-In support worker was aware of his eviction and risk of homelessness, but did nothing to assist our client to find safe accommodation. Despite this, the Home Office maintained that Reach-In support is adequate for our client.

Our client’s application for judicial review of the Home Office’s decision was heard on 5 December 2024, and on 12 February 2025 the judge handed down a judgment in which he found that:

i) The Home Office failed to take account of or engage with material evidence when making its decision.

ii) The Home Office’s decision to exit our client from the NRM and terminate MSVCC support was undertaken pursuant to a flawed RNA process, and without considering his ongoing need for support with his psychological recovery.

iii) The Home Office irrationally refused our client’s request for re-entry into the NRM on the basis that access to Reach-In support was adequate to meet his trafficking related recovery needs.

iv) The Home Office failed to monitor the assistance provided by her contractors under the Reach-In Service and was, therefore, not in a position to ascertain whether access to that service was sufficient to discharge her obligations to our client.

Bryony Goodesmith, Adam Hundt and Nakita Hedges acted for the claimant, instructing Grace Capel of Doughty Street Chambers.