CA-2025-002338 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1264

During the course of the hearing before the Judge, the Competent Authority sent CTK’s solicitors the Competent Authority’s decision. The email was timed at 17.39 on 16 September, some 26 hours after the Competent Authority’s request for further information, and four hours after Ms Begum’s email of 16 September 2025 to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority’s decision recorded that the Competent Authority had received a referral from the Home Office “Immigration Enforcement IE” on 15 September 2025 which stated that CTK “may be a victim of modern slavery”. The Competent Authority said that it had assessed CTK’s case and had decided that “there are not currently Reasonable Grounds to conclude they are a victim of modern slavery”. The Competent Authority listed the documents which it had considered. They included CTK’s screening interview, the Competent Authority referral form dated 14 September 2025, Duncan Lewis’s further representations dated 14 September 2025, CTK’s witness statement dated 15 September 2025, and Home Office records “accessed on 16 September 2015”.

The Competent Authority’s decision said that on 14 September CTK had been “referred into the Competent Authority by a member of the Home Office, Immigration Enforcement (IE). This referral was accepted by the IECA on 15/09/2015”. “IECA” stands for the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority.

The Competent Authority’s decision added that, on 15 September 2015, the IECA contacted the “First Responder (FR) and Alternative First Responder (ALT FR) by email requesting any further information. They responded on 16/09/2025 with further information that has been taken into consideration but has not altered the decision for the reasons given below”.

The Competent Authority’s decision summarised CTK’s account. It is not necessary for us to describe either that summary or the reasoning in the Competent Authority’s decision, other than very briefly. The Competent Authority accepted that CTK had been reasonably consistent in his account and that there were no significant credibility concerns with it. The Competent Authority did not accept, however, that the events described by CTK and referred to by the Competent Authority as “incidents 1 and 3” met the definition of modern slavery. The Competent Authority did not disbelieve CTK’s account of the events which it referred to as “incident 2”. The Competent Authority considered, rather, that CTK had not given enough details about “incident 2”. The Competent Authority said that CTK had not raised his “exploitation concerns” in his screening interview on 13 August 2015. He had first raised this concern “within consultation with” his legal representatives. That led to his referral to the Competent Authority on 14 September 2025. The Competent Authority did not accept that CTK had raised his concerns at the first opportunity. Material which it would have been reasonable to expect, such as medical reports, had not been provided.

The Competent Authority’s decision continued, “As noted above, the IECA contacted the First Responder and your Legal Representatives on 15/08/2025 [sic; this is certainly meant to be 15/09/2025] to ascertain if there was any further information to be provided in relation to the case. The First Responder and your Legal Representatives responded on 16/09/2025 with further information that has been taken into consideration but has not altered the decision for the reasons outlined in this letter”.

The Competent Authority’s conclusion was that there were “not considered to be reasonable grounds to believe that [CTK] had been trafficked within Ethiopia and Libya”, nor that he was a victim of modern slavery. There was a bold heading towards the end of the decision: “What happens next”. The heading under that, in smaller bold font, was “Reconsideration routes”. The decision then said that CTK could ask for a reconsideration if more information, “in addition to the information already provided becomes available or if there are specific concerns that it is not in line with published guidance. Any such request is encouraged to be made through the first responder or authorised support provider involved in the case, although this is not a requirement. Your client is entitled to seek legal advice to challenge this decision by judicial review. Your client can request one reconsideration of their negative reasonable grounds decision, which has to be made within 30 calendar days of the decision”. The Competent Authority’s decision then had a link to the relevant statutory guidance.