Four trafficking victims fight for compensation

In a significant ruling from the High Court of Justice, four trafficking victims have contested the rejection of Exceptional Case Funding that prevented them from securing legal aid to pursue compensation claims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case, referred to as HJK & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework, was decided by Mr Justice Calver on 1 April 2025. This judgment sheds light on the critical intersections of legal frameworks, victims' rights, and access to justice for those who have experienced severe abuses.

The Claimants—HJK, PLJ, JNB, and DSR—are victims of trafficking and modern slavery, having endured both physical and emotional trauma while in the UK. They sought recompense for the suffering inflicted upon them by their traffickers. The CICS was designed to compensate individuals injured as a result of violent crime, with provisions for victims of human trafficking included since 2012. However, the Claimants encountered formidable obstacles when applying for compensation, primarily due to the absence of legal representation and the tight constraints imposed by time limits on submitting claims.

The CICS application process has historically posed unique challenges for trafficking victims, especially when applications arrive past the designated two-year time frame. The Claimants expressed concerns over their lack of awareness regarding their eligibility until after the time limit had expired. Under the CICS, claims officers have the authority to grant extensions in cases of exceptional circumstances, a situation the Claimants argued pertained to their traumatic experiences.

The Defendant, the Director of Legal Aid Casework, maintained that the application process was straightforward, suggesting that victims could navigate it without legal support. However, evidence contradicted this assertion, revealing that each Claimant grapples with lingering trauma, significantly hindering their capacity to engage effectively with legal processes. HJK, for example, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and paranoid schizophrenia, causing substantial difficulties in understanding and completing the application alone. The other Claimants, each having faced severe psychological distress, echoed similar sentiments about the overwhelming nature of the application complexities.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Calver affirmed the mental and emotional burdens shouldered by the Claimants, suggesting that their circumstances could not be sufficiently addressed without legal representation. He concluded that the refusal of ECF funding constituted a failure to uphold the Claimants' rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures the right to a fair trial. The judgement stated that without legal aid, the Claimants would be unable to effectively present their cases and would confront significant disadvantages.

Moreover, the court evaluated the ramifications of the Defendant’s refusal to grant legal aid concerning Articles 4 and 8 ECHR, which protect against slavery and inhumane treatment and promote respect for private and family life. The Claimants argued that these rights were engaged due to the elevated vulnerabilities they encountered as survivors of trafficking.

This case highlights the essential intersection of legal aid, victims’ rights, and trauma-informed justice approaches for individuals who have endured profound injustices. By recognising the complexities of the application process and the psychological barriers hindering victims’ participation, the court may set a precedent that underscores the necessity for accessible and understandable legal pathways for vulnerable populations. The implications of this judgment may pave the way for future claimants while advocating for improved facilitation of the compensation process for victims of violent crime throughout the UK.

As the legal landscape surrounding trafficking victims continues to evolve, this case stresses the importance of a robust legal framework that effectively supports those seeking justice and healing from their traumatic experiences