Refugee succeeds in High Court challenge to negative trafficking decision
By: Hanna Barzinji
A Sudanese refugee has successfully challenged a negative trafficking decision in the UK High Court, highlighting critical flaws in the Home Office’s handling of his case.
In R (Alnoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 922 (Admin), the claimant was exploited, beaten, and tortured in Libya during his journey to the UK in 2021. He claimed asylum upon arrival in the UK in November 2022 and was detained. He was later released however in April 2023 he was issued with a notice of intent that his claim would be treated as inadmissible. The claimant was re-detained in May 2024 and was served with a second notice of intent. The claimant was later referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) to assess his status as a potential victim of trafficking. However, a negative reasonable grounds decision was issued with the Home Office questioning the credibility of his account and citing a lack of supporting evidence.
The decision maker had determined that the claimant’s account was consistent, that Libya was a known risk for trafficking, and that the three elements of human trafficking were present in the case: action, means, and purpose. Despite this, he was issued with a negative reasonable grounds decision due to limited detail, a lack of supporting evidence, the delay in his claim, and that the information provided by the referral officer did not identify any indicators of modern slavery.
The claimant was released on bail in June 2024. His asylum claim was then considered in the UK, and he was recognised as a refugee in August 2024. Following this outcome, the claimant sought judicial review of the negative trafficking decision.
The High Court found that the Home Office had failed to properly consider all relevant factors, including the claimant’s personal circumstances. On the claim that no modern slavery signs were detected, the court remarked that this was not supported by the evidence and that on the face of the account, there are indicators of modern slavery. Furthermore, the decision maker acknowledged that the three elements of the trafficking definition were met in the claimant’s account.
Secondly, the court stated that the issue about the claimant’s level of detail was not explained, and that he does not understand how any supporting evidence could reasonably be expected by the claimant. Lastly, in relation to the last point about the delay in his trafficking claim, the court determined that the claimant was in detention at the time and therefore had access to a lawyer.
The court emphasised the need for “anxious scrutiny” in such cases, requiring decision makers to demonstrate that every factor favouring the claimant has been adequately considered. This case also demonstrates how much more difficult these claims are to succeed in when a person is detained.