High Court begins hearing judicial review against Home Office and London borough over support for child trafficking victims
The High Court is this week (4-5 July) hearing a judicial review challenge brought by a child trafficking victim who contends he was not given any specialist support for his trafficking-related needs from the Home Office and his local authority for several years.
The hearing will examine whether the Home Secretary and the London Borough of Barnet breached their obligations, including under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The claimant, AM, represented by law firm Leigh Day, is 22 years old and has been granted refugee status.
According to Leigh Day, he suffered “repeated episodes” of trafficking as a child, which included being made to carry out forced labour by a criminal gang in Libya where he was held captive, tortured and forced into domestic servitude.
AM was recognised as a likely victim of child trafficking soon after seeking asylum in the UK at the age of 16.
Leigh Day said: “Despite this, AM received no support for the specific purpose of assisting him with his physical, psychological and social recovery from his trafficking experiences for nearly three years during his childhood and in his transition to adulthood.”
After the Home Office decided that there were ‘conclusive grounds’ to believe his account of trafficking, neither the Home Office nor his local authority provided AM with specialist support, it claimed.
Leigh Day suggested that this has “significantly affected his ability to recover from his experiences of child trafficking and that his experience is not an isolated anomaly”.
According to the law firm, AM’s lawyers will argue that the root of the problem is that whilst the Home Secretary has made arrangements for adults to receive victim recovery support, no equivalent arrangements have been made for child victims.
“The Home Secretary instead relies on local authorities’ duty to safeguard the welfare of children in their area,” the law firm added.
The case has been recognised as ‘arguable’ and permission has been granted to proceed to a full hearing.
Alongside examining whether the Home Secretary and the local authority breached their obligations, the hearing will investigate whether the different approach taken for adults discriminates against children, contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR.
Leigh Day claimed the case could have wider implications for the way child trafficking victims are supported by the Home Office and local authorities.
Carolin Ott, solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “Our client’s treatment shows how the current system is failing to adequately support child victims of trafficking contrary to obligations under both international and domestic law. Whilst adult victims have specific support arrangements, there is no such guarantee of protection for children, often with serious consequences for their development and safety.
“The Home Office’s own statistics show that more than 7,000 child victims were referred into the National Referral Mechanism for victims of trafficking last year, many of whom (more than 3,000) were British. It is crucial that these children are supported in their recovery from exploitation and abuse. This situation not only affects our client, but thousands of child victims of trafficking who are being left without adequate state support to help them recover.”
Lottie Winson
