Read the full judgment here.
The C arrived in the UK in 2009 and escaped from the family who trafficked her about six months later. She claimed asylum and was referred to the National Referral Mechanism about five years later and eventually accepted to be a victim of trafficking. However the D refused DL on the basis that although she was trafficked those circumstances no longer existed.
There is a useful summary of the provisions relating to trafficking at §§10-16. The standard of review required for Article 4 ECHR is one of anxious scrutiny: §§30-35.
There were failures in the police investigation and the analysis of the personal circumstances of C.
Even if a C does not succeed in a grant of leave on account of having been trafficked, the personal circumstances will be relevant to Article 8 (§59):
“…the personal circumstances relevant to the trafficking claim will also be relevant to the Article 8 claim, and the fact that they are not sufficient to lead to a grant of DL on the basis of trafficking should not lead to them being ignored or given less weight in the Article 8 claim. The consideration, rules and thresholds are different.”
The decision not to grant DL on trafficking grounds was quashed; the conclusive grounds decision that the C was trafficked remains; the D is to make a fresh decision on whether to grant DL. A declaration that the C’s rights under Article 4 ECHR have been breached was granted.