Confirmed victim of trafficking entitled to reinstatement of support after being exited from NRM

Our client (P), was exited from NRM support following receipt of a positive conclusive grounds (CG) decision. He had not received NRM support for over a year.

P was an asylum seeker and in receipt of section 95 support. However, on account of his asylum claim being refused and his appeal dismissed, he faced destitution following his eviction from asylum support accommodation. Two days before his support was due to be terminated, an independent support provider requested reinstatement of NRM support from the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), via the Victim Care Contract prime contractor, including the provision of accommodation. The prime contractor responded saying they were not able to help as he had left NRM support. At the time of the request, P had an outstanding application for discretionary leave to remain as a victim of trafficking.

ATLEU sought to challenge the SSHD’s refusal to make arrangements to provide P with accommodation and support as a recognised victim of trafficking who was homeless and destitute.

We argued that, in refusing to reinstate support, the SSHD had acted unlawfully. Recognised victims of trafficking awaiting resolution of an application for discretionary leave as a victim of trafficking are entitled to continued support under the NRM from the SSHD under both Article 12 of ECAT and the Recovery Needs Assessment Guidance.

ATLEU sought interim relief from the Administrative Court, and secured an order on an urgent basis that P’s asylum support and accommodation should not be terminated as it would leave him homeless and destitute.

Following this the SSHD conceded that P both had a right to request reinstatement of NRM support, and that he was eligible to have NRM support reinstated. The SSHD sought to discharge their obligation to accommodate P through the provision of section 4 asylum support accommodation. The SSHD agreed that P could remain in his current accommodation, or be accommodated in the same area, in recognition of his specific support needs as a victim of trafficking.

P remains at his current accommodation and NRM outreach support has been put in place, including the provision of NRM subsistence.

You can find a copy of the consent order here.

Though the Recovery Needs Assessment Guidance is silent on reinstatement of support, this case provides confirmation that victims of trafficking who have a positive conclusive grounds decision and who have previously left NRM support are entitled to request reinstatement of support where the need arises. It also demonstrates that victims of trafficking with a positive conclusive grounds decision have left NRM support, but are still awaiting a decision on their discretionary leave application, they are eligible to have NRM support reinstated when they have unmet support needs.

Our thanks to instructed counsel Shu Shin Luh of Garden Court Chambers.

We have prepared some responses to questions from survivors of trafficking and their support providers on this issue.