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

Adult human trafficking requires an action, a coercive means and an exploitative purpose. Exploitation is not confined to forced labour. Forced labour requires work or service exacted under a menace of penalty and performed against the person’s will; apparent consent may not be decisive where there is no viable alternative. A challenge to statutory guidance fails where it accurately states that legal framework. A challenge to the framework’s application to individual facts may nevertheless remain arguable.

LBZ, a Chinese national living in the United Kingdom, claimed to have been trafficked through kitchen and construction work. The Secretary of State accepted his account and found that the action and means components were met, but concluded that the exploitative purpose component was absent. Reconsideration was refused. On renewal of his application for judicial review, LBZ challenged the trafficking framework and its application, alleging errors concerning exploitation, the duty to make reasonable inquiries and Article 4 obligations. The central issue was whether the policy challenge was arguable and, if not, whether its application to the individual facts remained challengeable.

Disposition. Permission was refused on Ground 1 and granted on Grounds 2–4. The substantive hearing will not challenge the content of the decision annex or statutory guidance, but may challenge their application to LBZ’s particular case.

1. Human trafficking requires three components: an action, a means and a purpose of exploitation. The exploitation component is not confined to forced labour and may include other forms identified in the guidance.
2. The Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022, regulation 3(6)(d), requires the provision of services or benefits to be the purpose of the force, threats or deception. The phrase designed to induce was treated as equivalent to acting for that purpose.
3. The forced-labour test requires work or service to be exacted under a menace of penalty and performed against the person’s will, for which the person has not offered themselves voluntarily. The court treated that as the correct test, following Basfar v Wong [2023] AC 33. It also regarded the guidance’s broad treatment of labour, penalties and apparent consent as consistent with Chowdury v Greece (App. no.21884/15).
4. The guidance identifies withholding wages as an indicator of modern slavery. Whether the Secretary of State correctly assessed the significance of unpaid wages, threats, violence and vulnerability was reserved for the substantive hearing.
5. The court applied the policy principles identified by the Supreme Court in R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37. There was no arguable basis for challenging the content of the guidance or decision annex, but their factual application remained arguable.

Permission was refused on the papers by Mansfield J on 14 May 2026. On renewal at an oral hearing, Mr Justice Sheldon refused permission on Ground 1 and granted permission on Grounds 2–4.