Mutesi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Competent Authority deciding whether a person is a victim of human trafficking must follow its published guidance. A conclusive grounds decision is made on the balance of probabilities, not a higher or conclusive standard. The guidance requires express and reasoned credibility findings where credibility is material. It does not require corroboration, and a decision maker must not treat the absence of police involvement as determinative. A credible first-hand account may itself prove the claim. A decision which accepts the same uncorroborated account for one element of trafficking but rejects it for other elements without explanation may be irrational.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the Competent Authority dated 30 July 2014 that, on the balance of probabilities, she was not a victim of human trafficking. She alleged that she had been deceived into travelling from Rwanda to the United Kingdom and had then been forced into prostitution.

The Competent Authority accepted that she had been transported, and described her account as internally consistent, but rejected the remaining elements because there was no external corroboration or police investigation. The central issues were whether the decision unlawfully required corroboration, failed to make express credibility findings, and applied the trafficking guidance correctly.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision was unlawful and was quashed. The claim was remitted to the Competent Authority for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment. The court could not declare that the claimant was necessarily a victim of trafficking because the lawful outcome remained for the Competent Authority.
2. The published guidance governed both the test and the decision-making process. The conclusive grounds decision required application of the balance of probabilities: trafficking had to be more likely than not, and certainty was unnecessary. The description of the decision as “conclusive” could not justify requiring more cogent proof.
3. The guidance required clear credibility findings, including identification of which events were accepted and which were rejected, with analysis of coherence, internal and external consistency, detail and relevant mitigating circumstances. The Competent Authority made no express adverse credibility findings. The court would not infer disbelief from a decision which failed to explain its reasoning.
4. The guidance contained no requirement for corroboration and stated that potential victims were not obliged to cooperate with the police. The Competent Authority therefore erred in law by treating the absence of corroboration, and the absence of a police investigation, as decisive. A credible account could prove the claim on the balance of probabilities without corroboration.
5. It was irrational to accept the claimant’s uncorroborated account as sufficient to establish the transportation element while rejecting the coercion and exploitation elements on the basis that the same account was uncorroborated. The reasoning also appeared internally inconsistent because the account accepted under the transportation heading included material matters relevant to coercion and exploitation.
6. The Competent Authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Knowles J CBE on 22 January 2015.