Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

s (3) Under United Kingdom law decisions o n trafficking under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (the “ Trafficking Convention ”) are made by the soi - disant “Competent A uthority” (hereinafter “ the Authority ”) under the so-called National Referral Mechanism (the “ NRM ”), which operates under the auspices of the Home Office and, hence, the Secretary of State. We elaborate on this framework in [19] et seq . On 29 November 2012 one of the national social services agencies made a formal referral of the Appellant to the authority under the NRM. On 0 1 February 201 3, the A uthority made a decision that the Appellant, then aged 16 years, was not a victim of trafficking. While accepting that he had been recruited, transported, transferred to and harboured in the United Kingdom and had been the victim of deception, the A uthority did not accept that the Appellant had been brought to the United Kingdom for the purpose of exploitation. The basis of this was that the Appellant had not made the case that he was coerced into working or that his freedom of movement had been curtailed. In its decision the A uthority stated, inter alia : “ In looking at the circumstances of your client’s passage to the United Kingdom it is accepted that he has been subject to an act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt as it is not only accepted that his step-grandmother did accompany him to the United Kingdom, it is also acce pted that he may have been deceiv ed as to the true purpose of being brought to the United Kingdom. Your client has clearly stated that he was told by his step-grandmother he was being brought to the United Kingdom to study ….. Given that he was not enrolled in any form of study or education following his arrival it is accepted that he was potentially deceived as to the true purpose of being brought to the United Kingdom . ” The conclusion made was that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the Appellant was a victim of trafficking within the compass of the Trafficking Convention ( infra ) . (4) By a further decision dated 02 April 2014, postdating the decision of the FtT, the A uthority notified the outcome of its reconsideration of its dismissal of the Appellant’s trafficking claim. Focusing on the Appellant’s life subsequent to his arrival in the United Kingdom, the A uthority reasoned that , as the Appellant had received a salary, was able to rent accommodation and pay his bills and had mov ed around and work ed in different jobs, he was not exploited and “ …. was never under the control or influence of the alleged traffickers in the UK ”. Next, the A uthority adopted the finding of the FtT that the Appellant had not been the victim of forced labour in the United Kingdom as there had been no threat or menace to him. At the height of the Appellant’s case he may have been subjected to a degree of manipulation which did not amount to exploitation via forced labour. Rather, the Appellant worked “ out of pure economic necessity ”. (5) Next, the A uthority reconsidered the Appellant’s claim of having been trafficked to the United Kingdom by his step-grandmother. It reasoned that even if this were accepted the Appellant was not under the control of his traffickers when first encountered by the police in September 2012, with the result that he did not require time to recover from any trafficking experience. It is appropriate to reproduce this somewhat enigmatic passage in full: “ It is noted that you were not under the control of your alleged traffickers when you were encountered by the police in September 2012. It is therefore not considered that you would require further time to recover fr om your alleged trafficking situation. Furthermore, it is considered that as you left the accommodation that was provided to you by [WY] when you worked in the Kebab shop in August 2013, the benefit of a 45 day period of reflection and recovery would be limited in relation to the time you have already had to recover. Therefore it is not accepted that you require a period of time to recover from the influence of your traffickers. ” The decision maker then highlighted that the Appellant was not suffering from any medical condition and had not made any complaint to the police, continuing: “ In conclusion, for the reasons given above, even if your account of your alleged experiences was accepted, it is considered that you are still not a victim of trafficking for the purpose of the Convention and at the present time. ”