LM (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In reviewing a Conclusive Grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism, the decision-maker must assess credibility and all relevant evidence holistically. Lies are not automatically determinative, but lies concerning matters of central importance may carry substantial weight. Expert evidence must be considered, including possible alternative causes of reported symptoms, but it is not determinative. The decision-maker must demonstrate anxious scrutiny and a high standard of reasoning, including proper consideration of factors favouring the applicant. Judicial review requires a fair reading of the decision as a whole rather than a search for isolated infelicities.

The claimant challenged the defendant’s negative Conclusive Grounds decision, which concluded that she had not established that she was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. She advanced grounds alleging insufficient anxious scrutiny, a misdirection on credibility, and an incorrect approach to expert evidence.

The decision considered the claimant’s changing accounts, previous admitted lies, expert psychiatric and psychological evidence, and supporting and adverse material. The central issues were whether the decision-maker had applied the correct approach to credibility and expert evidence and whether the reasoning met the required standard on judicial review.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The application to admit further witness evidence was refused because the evidence went to the merits of the Conclusive Grounds decision, could have been provided earlier, and was not relevant to whether the decision-maker had erred in law.
2. The decision-maker had not misdirected herself on credibility. The decision referred to the applicable guidance, considered the claimant’s different accounts, and assessed the evidence holistically. Although inconsistencies and lies do not automatically require rejection of a trafficking claim, the claimant’s lies concerned matters of central importance and could properly be treated as highly significant. The claimant’s latest explanation for those lies was also reasonably open to rejection in the context of repeated dishonesty.
3. The approach to expert evidence was lawful. The decision-maker considered the expert reports, was entitled to conclude that mental health problems did not explain the inconsistencies, and had to consider alternative causes of the reported symptoms. Expert evidence could support credibility but was not determinative.
4. The Conclusive Grounds decision demonstrated anxious scrutiny and a high standard of reasoning. It addressed the evidence in detail, including matters favourable to the claimant. The court was required to read it fairly as a whole and not select passages or examine the document with a lawyer’s eye for minor infelicities.
5. The decision-maker was entitled to refer to the text messages and associated police questioning because their gist was undisputed and they were relevant to whether the claimant’s account of events had been planned. The claimant had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that she had been trafficked.