R (ABW) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department

Subject Matter

IMMIGRATION — Human trafficking — Victim — Secretary of State concluding reasonable grounds foe believing claimant to be potential victim of human trafficking — Secretary of State also deciding claimant threat to public order by reason of having multiple convictions for public order offences and making public order disqualification decision removing claimant’s protection from removal and entitlement to assistance and support — Secretary of State subsequently refusing to complete victim identification in respect of claimant — Whether refusal to complete victim identification after public order disqualification decision unlawful — Whether obligation to complete process so long as individual not removed — Whether approach to decision-making in statutory guidance unlawful — Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (c 36), s 63 — Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005(Cm 7465), arts 10, 13(3)

[2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin); [2026] WLR(D) 1, KBD

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In ABW v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Court determined that the Defendant's Public Order Disqualification (POD) decision was unlawful. The court found that the Defendant did not adequately consider the Claimant's individual circumstances and recovery needs in relation to the public order threat. It ruled that a Conclusive Grounds decision must be made for individuals under a POD while in the UK. As a result, the Decision was quashed, and certain sections of the Statutory Guidance were declared unlawful.

Issues

• Did the Defendant misinterpret the legal obligations under section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 by failing to proceed to a Conclusive Grounds decision for the Claimant, despite the Claimant remaining in the UK?
• Was the Defendant's application of the Public Order Disqualification process unlawful due to a presumption of high threat to public order based solely on the Claimant's past convictions, without considering individual circumstances?
• Did the Defendant's decision fail to adequately assess the Claimant's risk of re-trafficking, particularly in light of the evidence regarding his vulnerability and the necessity of NRM support?