R (SAC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1400 (Admin)

On 6 June 2025 the High Court allowed a judicial review of the SSHD’s negative reasonable grounds decision in the NRM, declaring the decision to be unlawful and quashing it. The Claimant also challenged the SSHD’s refusal to reconsider its reasonable grounds decision, which the Court also found to be unlawful.

The Claimant was referred into the NRM after accessing support from the British Red Cross. He had been recruited to work in construction and painting: he worked for various different people, slept on construction sites, worked very long hours for very little pay (with few or no breaks), was shouted at and threatened, had his wages withheld, and sustained various injuries due to the unsafe working conditions.

The SSHD had decided that two out of three elements of human trafficking were satisfied – action and means – but that the Claimant was not recruited for the purpose of exploitation (the third element of human trafficking). The SSHD considered that the test for forced labour was not met and as such that there were not reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery.

In her judgment, Kate Grange KC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) held that the SSHD misdirected herself in law/was in error of law in relation to the application of the definitions of human trafficking and forced labour (ground 2), that the SSHD unlawfully failed to follow the statutory guidance (ground 3) and that the reasonable grounds decision was irrational (ground 5). Further, the reconsideration decision failed to apply the relevant part of the guidance and failed to engage with the lengthy representations made on the Claimant’s behalf (ground 4).

The Court observed at paragraph 70 that

“…seeking to characterise the Claimant’s situation as one involving “pure economic considerations” is concerning given the reality which will face many individuals who are subjected to trafficking and exploitation. Many will remain in work because they fear the consequences of what will happen to them if they do not receive money or shelter and that may be part of the menace of penalty in any particular case. In my assessment, if that part of the guidance is given too broad an application, it may undermine the purpose and intent behind the protections, contrary to the guidance which has been given by the courts in this area.”

Serena Sekhon represented the Claimant, instructed by Scott Laing and Abigail Briggs of Bhatia Best Solicitors.

The full judgment can be found on BAILLI.