MS (Pakistan) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Judgment given

Case summary
Judgment details
Appeal
Watch hearings
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2018/0159

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener(s)

Equality and Human Rights Commission

AIRE Centre

ECPAT UK

Issue

1. Where the Competent Authority for the purposes of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) has determined that a person is not a victim of trafficking, what effect does this have on the jurisdiction of a tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision to remove that person to decide whether a person is a victim of trafficking? 2. Where a tribunal decides that a person is the victim of trafficking, what impact does this have on the lawfulness of the decision to remove the person by reference to article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and applicable policy?

Facts

The appellant is a Pakistan national born in June 1995. He entered the United Kingdom on a visit visa in July 2011 when he was just 16. His case is that he was tricked into travelling to the UK by a promise that he would be furthering his education but that he was delivered to a restaurant owner and made to work long hours unpaid. He was able to leave this job for a succession of very low paid jobs in Asian food outlets which he was directed to by adult co-workers. He was arrested by the police in September 2012 and claimed asylum. His social worker referred him to the Competent Authority as a potential victim of trafficking, but the authority held in February 2013 that he had not been brought to the UK for the purpose of forced service. The respondent rejected his claim for asylum and issued removal directions. The Upper Tribunal held that the appellant could challenge the negative trafficking decision in the appeal, had not been granted his rights under ECAT, and that his removal would be in breach of article 4 ECHR. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal, holding that the Upper Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in remaking the trafficking decision and then erred in using its remade decision for the wrong purpose. MS withdrew his appeal but the Equality and Human Rights Commission applies to be substituted for the appellant.