SM, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Reasonable Grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism must apply the low threshold of reasonable suspicion and address all relevant evidence and guidance. A decision-maker must assess the purpose for which a person was transported, rather than treating the absence of completed exploitation as determinative. The distinction between smuggling and trafficking may be blurred, particularly where a child incurs an unaffordable debt accompanied by threats or other indicators of possible exploitation. A decision that records only evidence supporting smuggling, while failing to engage with material evidence supporting trafficking, is unlawful. The Administrative Court applies anxious scrutiny to the reasoning, but does not substitute its own merits assessment.

The claimant challenged a reconsidered decision of the Single Competent Authority dated 21 April 2023. The decision found no reasonable grounds to believe that he had been trafficked from Albania to the United Kingdom. The claimant had been a child when he obtained a forged passport for £15,000, had no means to pay the debt, and reported threats to himself and his family.

The challenge concerned whether the Authority had irrationally assessed the purpose of the transportation, failed to consider relevant evidence and context, and failed to apply the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance on children, uncompleted exploitation, expert evidence, and unclear cases involving smuggling and trafficking.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision of the Single Competent Authority was unlawful and was quashed. It was remitted for reconsideration. The court expressed no view on the lawful outcome of that reconsideration.
2. The court’s role was supervisory. It applied anxious scrutiny to whether the Authority had considered all relevant matters and rationally applied the Guidance, while recognising that reasonable decision-makers may disagree on the same facts.
3. The Reasonable Grounds test is whether, on the available information, it is reasonable to believe that the person is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. This is an objective and low threshold. If reasonable grounds for belief exist, competing grounds for disbelief are for the Conclusive Grounds stage, not the initial filter.
4. The Authority accepted the claimant’s account as broadly consistent and free from significant credibility concerns. That acceptance required consideration of his genuine fear of exploitation, the £15,000 debt incurred by a child with no apparent means of repayment, and the possibility of debt bondage or exploitation.
5. The decision failed to engage with material evidence, including the claimant’s asylum interview, his evidence about being made to work, the expert opinion concerning false passports and debt bondage, and contextual country evidence. It referred to evidence supporting smuggling but did not evaluate the evidence favouring trafficking.
6. The Guidance required consideration of cases where exploitation had not yet occurred, because purpose rather than completed exploitation is decisive. It also required consideration of cases in which smuggling and trafficking overlap or the distinction is unclear. The decision’s focus on the absence of forced work and its reliance on the smuggling description showed that these matters had not been rationally addressed.

First-instance judicial review. Permission was granted on 5 December 2023. The High Court allowed the claim, quashed the Single Competent Authority’s decision, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.