04 Mar SSHD concedes use of internal policy referring to an unlawful threshold in trafficking decisions and agrees to amend it
In a significant development for survivors of trafficking, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) has accepted that she operated internal policy which directed its caseworkers to an unlawful “objective evidence” threshold when making Reasonable Grounds decisions and has agreed to amend internal policy.
Prior to July 2023, the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance directed decision-makers, at the Reasonable Grounds stage, to rely on “objective factors” and stated that a potential victim’s own account would not ordinarily be sufficient in the absence of such evidence. That aspect of the guidance was challenged by two potential victims of trafficking in judicial review proceedings in the case of AS and BXR, as a result of which, the SSHD agreed to amend the statutory guidance in July 2023 to remove the requirement for reliance on “objective evidence”.
Notwithstanding that amendment, since then Deighton Pierce Glynn acted for a large number of survivors of trafficking and/or modern slavery who continued to receive negative Reasonable Grounds decisions on the basis that their accounts were said to lack objective or corroborative evidence.
In 2025, one of our clients, HAL, an asylum seeker who had been referred into the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”), applied for judicial review against SSHD following a decision that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was a victim of trafficking. That decision was made notwithstanding that HAL’s account was internally consistent and accepted to be plausible and relied heavily on the asserted absence of evidence beyond his own account and an alleged “lack of detail”, implying that HAL had failed to provide objective evidence in support of his claim.
The grounds argued that the SSHD had applied an unlawfully elevated threshold at the Reasonable Grounds stage, contrary to Article 4 ECHR, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the statutory guidance and settled case law establishing that the Reasonable Grounds threshold is a low one, requiring no more than a “credible suspicion” that an individual may be a victim of trafficking. In particular, the claim identified that although the statutory guidance had been amended in July 2023 to remove any requirement for “objective evidence”, the SSHD continued to require corroboration in practice when making Reasonable Grounds decisions, refusing claims on the basis of a supposed “limited level of detail”.
HAL contended that this demonstrated a real risk that an unlawful threshold was continuing to be applied, notwithstanding the SSHD’s denial that such a threshold was being used. HAL further contended that the standard wording used in Reasonable Grounds decisions indicated the operation of an unlawful, unpublished policy.
Following the issuing of judicial review proceedings by HAL challenging the SSHD’s decision, and before the Court had determined permission, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision. The SSHD had initially denied applying an unlawful threshold. However, HAL made a Part 18 CPR request which revealed, amongst other documents, an internal Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) operated by the SSHD. This SOP explicitly directed caseworkers to refuse making positive Reasonable Grounds decisions “for cases where the first responder has failed to provide the SCA with sufficient ‘objective evidence’ to support the PV’s claims,” further explaining to caseworkers that “an ‘objective’ factor is a piece of information or evidence that is based in fact. Ordinarily, a victim’s own account, by itself, would not be sufficient absent objective factors to have real suspicion.” This made very clear that the SSHD was still requiring “objective evidence” before making a positive Reasonable Grounds decision, despite it being unlawful.
HAL maintained that the policy required amendment regardless of the SSHD’s agreement to pay costs in his case and to reconsider his claim. The SSHD accepted that reliance upon an “objective evidence” threshold in Reasonable Grounds decisions is inconsistent with the applicable legal framework and agreed to amend its internal policy directing caseworkers to continue applying such an unlawful threshold. She further accepted that under the current statutory guidance, she cannot restrict the making of positive Reasonable Grounds decisions solely on the absence of “objective evidence” and has no intention of restricting Reasonable Grounds decisions on this basis under the current statutory guidance.
The proceedings were ultimately resolved by settlement, recorded in a sealed consent order and accompanied by a Statement of Reasons.
The outcome is significant for HAL and for other survivors of trafficking who have faced unlawful decision‑making that deprived them of lawful trafficking decisions and the vital support they are entitled to receive following such decisions.
Solicitor, Ralitsa Peykova commented: “Unlawful Reasonable Grounds decisions routinely exclude survivors from the vital protections that are meant to safeguard them at their most vulnerable. Our client has secured a genuine victory for survivors, prompting the Home Office to amend its policy and helping ensure that others are not denied the protections they are entitled to.”
HAL was represented by Ahmed Aydeed, Ralitsa Peykova and Natalie Hawes of Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors, instructing Miranda Butler of Landmark Chambers.
Share this story
