Key Facts
- •The claimant, AM, a child victim of trafficking (CVOT), sought judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) and/or the London Borough of Barnet to provide backdated financial support.
- •AM was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in April 2018.
- •The SSHD made a positive 'reasonable grounds' decision that AM was a CVOT on 27 April 2018 but did not inform Barnet.
- •Barnet argued it was unaware of AM's CVOT status until March 2019.
- •AM challenged the difference in treatment between adult victims of trafficking (AVOTs) and CVOTs, and the alleged failure by Barnet to provide adequate support.
Legal Principles
State's obligation to assist victims in their physical, psychological, and social recovery, including subsistence, access to medical treatment, counselling, and information.
Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking In Human Beings (ECAT)
Ministerial statements in Parliament can be used as background material to explain government decisions and policy objectives.
Wilson v The First County Trust [2004] 1 AC 816
SSHD's duty under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) to issue guidance on identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
Local authorities' duties under the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need.
Children Act 1989
Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits slavery, servitude, and forced labour.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 14 of the ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Ground 1 (SSHD's failure to ensure consistent support for CVOTs) partially succeeded.
The SSHD was entitled to require consent to remain in the NRM after reaching 18; however, the SSHD's system of 'opting out' was flawed, and AM was entitled to back payments for the period where consent was wrongly assumed.
Ground 2 (discrimination against CVOTs compared to AVOTs) failed.
Children and adults are not in analogous situations, and the CA 1989 framework is sufficient to address the needs of CVOTs in the care of local authorities.
Ground 3 (Barnet's failure to provide adequate support) succeeded.
Barnet ought to have recognized AM's CVOT status earlier and failed to fulfill its duties as a First Responder; however, section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was not fully applicable due to the likelihood that earlier awareness of his rights would have altered the claimant's actions.
Grounds 4 and 5 (breach of Barnet's duties under CA 1989, CA 2004, and Children and Social Work Act 2017) succeeded.
These grounds followed directly from the findings on Ground 3.