High Court examines trafficking victim's case

The High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) recently dealt with the significant case of Alnoor v Secretary of State for the Home Department on 15 April 2025. In this instance, the court explored intricate issues related to human trafficking and modern slavery, stemming from Alnoor's application for judicial review against a previous Negative Reasonable Grounds (NRG) decision made by the Secretary of State in May 2024. This decision raised doubts about whether there were reasonable grounds to believe Alnoor had been a victim of human trafficking during his exploitation in Libya.

Alnoor’s narrative reveals a harrowing experience where he described being forced into labour on an olive farm in Libya under conditions tantamount to imprisonment and coercion. He recounted being subjected to violence and threats to maintain compliance while trying to escape from conflict-ridden Sudan. This alarming background set the stage for his plea for asylum in the United Kingdom.

The judicial review serves as a critical avenue for Alnoor to contest the NRG decision, arguing that significant flaws tainted it. Central to the court's deliberations were several points: whether Alnoor's refugee status rendered the judicial review "academic", the interpretation of “anxious scrutiny” in the context of the decision, and the pivotal issue of victim identification under both European and domestic law.

The High Court highlighted Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits slavery and servitude, imposing a duty on the state to safeguard individuals from such abuses. The Human Rights Act 1998 and statutory guidance under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were examined, illustrating how these frameworks shape the state's obligations to prevent and support victims of trafficking.

Furthermore, the ruling underscored the importance of victim-identification as an essential process under the European Convention on Human Trafficking, demanding detailed examination and responsiveness from authorities. The judgement delved into the frameworks that govern victim support and the function of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in assessing claims made by alleged trafficking victims.

Despite the gravity of Alnoor’s claims, the NRG decision cited insufficient detail and corroborative evidence, casting doubt on his account. The court pointed out that the decision-making process fell short of expected thoroughness and transparency, particularly concerning the interpretations of "reasonable grounds."

In addressing whether Alnoor’s refugee status rendered the judicial review obsolete, the court concluded that victim-identification protections remain vital even after gaining refugee status. The ruling highlighted the stringent nature of human trafficking claims and the necessity for "anxious scrutiny." It affirmed that allegations of this seriousness require meticulous examination instead of dismissals based solely on procedural matters.

Ultimately, the case not only illuminates Alnoor's dire circumstances but also ignites a broader conversation on the treatment of modern slavery victims in UK legal and administrative systems. It underscores the pressing need for robust measures to ensure victims receive essential support and protection in alignment with the state’s obligations at both national and international levels.

The judgement in Alnoor v Secretary of State for the Home Department signifies potential shifts in how trafficking claims are approached in the future, potentially establishing important precedents that affirm victims' rights and the responsibilities of the state to protect them from exploitation.