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

Kidnap for ransom is not excluded from the concept of exploitation in human-trafficking law. The inclusion of kidnap as a trafficking method means that, depending on the facts, it may be undertaken for the purpose of exploiting the victim.

At the reasonable-grounds stage, the claimant need not prove that exploitation occurred or that the intended inducement succeeded. The decision-maker must consider whether the accepted facts provide reasonable grounds to believe that the trafficking action and means were undertaken with a view to one of the forms of exploitation in rule 3(6) of the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022. A decision which considers only forced labour, and fails to address exploitation through benefits or services, is unlawful.

The claimant, a Syrian national, challenged the Secretary of State’s negative reasonable-grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism. His account of being kidnapped, detained, beaten and held for ransom in Libya was accepted for the purposes of the decision.

The Secretary of State accepted the action and means elements of trafficking but concluded that the claimant had not been subjected to forced labour and therefore had not been exploited. The central issue was whether kidnap for ransom could fall within exploitation under Article 4 of ECAT and rule 3(6) of the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022, and whether the decision-maker had applied the correct reasonable-grounds test.

1. The claim was allowed. The Secretary of State’s decision was quashed and a lawful decision was required.
2. Human trafficking contains three components: action, means and purpose. The Secretary of State accepted that the claimant had been transported or harboured and subjected to kidnap, force and vulnerability. The disputed issue was exploitation.
3. The definition of exploitation in Article 4 of ECAT is expressed as a minimum. Rule 3(5) of the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022 expressly includes kidnap as a means capable of leading to exploitation under rule 3(6). Reading the Regulations as a whole, kidnap for ransom may, depending on the facts, be undertaken for the purpose of or with a view to exploiting the victim.
4. At the reasonable-grounds stage, the claimant was not required to prove that exploitation had occurred or that he had in fact been induced to enable the kidnappers to acquire a benefit. It was sufficient to show reasonable grounds that the kidnap was undertaken with a view to exploitation and that he was subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce him to provide services, provide benefits, or enable another person to acquire benefits.
5. The Secretary of State’s reasoning was unlawfully narrow. It considered only whether the claimant had been subjected to forced labour. It did not consider whether the accepted facts, including his forced communications with his family and the violence used to encourage ransom payment, supported exploitation under rule 3(6)(d).
6. The alternative submission that requesting ransom payment constituted providing services was rejected. Treating such conduct as a service would stretch the ordinary meaning of that word beyond endurance. The court did not need to decide that issue in detail.
7. Whether kidnap for ransom constitutes exploitation remains fact-specific. The Secretary of State must reconsider the claimant’s case lawfully.