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

The Judge failed to take into account that, regardless of any reconsideration of the negative reasonable grounds decision in the United Kingdom, CTK was to be returned to a “Tier 1” ECAT signatory State where his rights as a potential victim of trafficking would be protected. “ECAT” is an acronym for the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. There was therefore no serious issue to be tried about CTK’s rights under Article 4 of the ECHR.

The Judge failed to take into account that a judicial review claim challenging the trafficking decision could be brought from France. That was an “effective remedy” even if a reconsideration application would not be considered.

The Judge erred in concluding that the balance of convenience was even. He failed to give “appropriate weight” to the public interest in a “timely” removal of CTK and the impact of any deferral on the deterrent effect of the policy. He should have given decisive weight to the public interest in deterring unsafe crossings.

The Judge’s conclusion that interim relief should be given for more than 14 days was irrational.