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

Mandatory interim relief against a public body requires a strong prima facie case and a balance of convenience assessment. Although the use of public funds ordinarily attracts substantial public-interest weight, that weight is materially reduced where the statutory guidance underpinning the challenged decision has been found unlawful. Where there are reasonable grounds to conclude that a person is a victim of modern slavery, and the public-order disqualification decision is subject to a strong prima facie challenge, continued support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract should ordinarily be maintained. Refusal requires a powerful, fact-based rationale. Alternative accommodation, healthcare, or possible support from another person may not adequately answer the claimant’s need for focused victim support.

The claimant, a Chinese national and recognised potential victim of modern slavery, challenged the respondent’s decision to impose a public-order disqualification under section 63(3) (f) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The decision resulted in withdrawal of his recovery period and support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract.

He applied for urgent mandatory interim relief restoring that support pending determination of the judicial review. The respondent relied on alternative accommodation and healthcare, possible support from the claimant’s partner, and the public interest in controlling expenditure. The application was considered shortly after judgment in R (on the application of ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which had found relevant aspects of the statutory guidance unlawful.

1. Strong prima facie case. The applicable test for mandatory interim relief against a public body required a strong prima facie case and a balance between the claimant’s prospective harm and the harm to the defendant, third parties and the public interest: De Falco v Crawley Borough Council [1980] QB 460 and R (on the application of RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd) v British Standards Institution [2024] EWCA Civ 530. In light of ABW [2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin), the claimant’s challenge presented a strong prima facie case, including on rationality grounds.
2. Public-interest weight. Public expenditure ordinarily attracts considerable weight when interim relief concerns statutory powers or policies based on statute. That weight was substantially diminished because the guidance underpinning the challenged decision had been found unlawful. The prospect of an appeal did not materially restore that weight.
3. Claimant’s position. The claimant had reasonable grounds for asserting that he was a victim of modern slavery, while the POD decision was strongly challengeable. In that context, continued support under the MSVCC, including the support ordinarily provided under section 8 of the statutory guidance, should follow. A powerful fact-based rationale would be required to refuse reinstatement.
4. Balance of convenience and order. Access to NHS services, accommodation under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, possible future section 95 support, and assistance from the claimant’s partner did not provide a comparable alternative to focused MSVCC support. The harm to the claimant from refusal clearly outweighed the harm to the respondent and public interest from reinstatement. Interim relief was therefore granted.