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

In a judicial review concerning modern-slavery support, a broad discretion to refuse re-entry into the National Referral Mechanism must be exercised on a principled, lawful and evidential basis. A decision-maker cannot rely on Reach-In support where the evidence shows that the service is incapable of meeting the identified need for assistance in accessing mental-health treatment. The distinction between information and signposting, on the one hand, and practical assistance with accessing treatment, on the other, is material. Travel costs to ESOL classes may in principle constitute a recovery need, even where the classes themselves are not funded through the modern-slavery support scheme. An alternative route to financial assistance may rationally be taken into account. A breach of Article 12 ECAT does not necessarily establish a breach of Article 4 ECHR.

The claimant, a confirmed victim of modern slavery, challenged three decisions refusing his re-entry into the National Referral Mechanism and Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract support. The decisions were made on 14 May 2023, 2 May 2024 and 6 August 2024. He contended that he required support to access mental-health treatment and financial assistance, including transport to ESOL classes.

The claim became a rolling judicial review. By the hearing, the claimant had refugee status and access to public funds, but maintained that his need for practical assistance with mental-health treatment remained. The central issues were whether the decisions were irrational or otherwise unlawful, whether alternative Reach-In or asylum-support arrangements could meet his needs, and whether Article 4 ECHR relief was available.

1. Role of judicial review. The Court’s task was to determine whether the challenged decisions were vitiated by public-law error, rather than decide for itself whether the claimant was then entitled to MSVCC support.
2. Mental-health assistance. The decisions of 14 May 2023 and 2 May 2024 failed to engage with material medical evidence showing a trafficking-related need for therapy and support in accessing it. The 6 August 2024 decision accepted that the claimant required assistance to access mental-health services, but irrationally relied on Reach-In support without evidentially establishing that it could provide more than information and signposting. The discretion to re-enter a victim into MSVCC support was broad, but had to be exercised on a principled, lawful and evidenced basis.
3. The Guidance and RNA Guidance disclosed a material distinction between MSVCC assistance with accessing support services or referrals to medical services, and Reach-In provision of information and signposting. The claimant’s need was practical assistance in accessing treatment. Refugee status and entitlement to NHS services did not resolve the access barrier.
4. ESOL travel. The cost of travel to ESOL classes was capable in principle of being a recovery need. The Guidance did not require the classes themselves to be funded through MSVCC support before travel costs could be funded. The contrary reasoning in the decisions of 2 May and 6 August 2024 was unlawful. Nevertheless, it was rational to take into account the possible alternative financial-support route under section 96(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
5. Article 4 ECHR. The Court declined to determine whether all Article 12 ECAT obligations are incorporated into Article 4 ECHR. The issue was insufficiently pleaded and involved disputed facts unsuitable for resolution in judicial review. The Article 4 claim therefore failed.
6. The application was allowed on the limited basis that all three decisions were legally flawed concerning access to mental-health services. The 6 August decision was quashed. No mandatory order requiring immediate re-entry was made; the Defendant was required to undertake expedited reconsideration in light of up-to-date evidence and the practical scope of Reach-In support.