The court of appeal has rejected claims by the Home Office that being kidnapped for ransom is not exploitation of trafficking victims.
The ruling means that many people who have been kidnapped for ransom, whom officials have previously excluded from being victims of exploitation under trafficking rules, will now have to have these claims considered. They may be eligible for the support and recovery package trafficking victims are entitled to.
Being kidnapped for ransom is a common hazard for asylum seekers passing through Libya on their journey to Europe. Many are fleeing conflict in countries such as Sudan and Eritrea as well as some Middle Eastern countries.
The legal challenge was brought by a Syrian asylum seeker who cannot be identified. The ۲۵-year-old fled forced military conscription in July ۲۰۲۱, knowing he was likely to be imprisoned and tortured in Syria for refusing to fight.
He arrived in Libya, ultimately hoping to reach the UK. He and other Syrians were abducted by armed men and held in captivity for a month between August and September ۲۰۲۱. His money and phone were seized and they were driven through the desert for ۲۴ hours, hearing gunshots, with no food and little water.
They were told they would not be released until their families agreed to pay a ransom of several thousand dollars. He was tied up and often beaten on his hands and feet by his kidnappers. He and the other captives had to phone their families to beg them to pay their kidnappers the ransom money. While they were on the phone, the kidnappers beat them so their families could hear screams. He was terrified that even if his family paid his captors, he might not be released and that his organs might be harvested.
The man was released after his family paid his kidnappers, and he made his way to Europe, crossing the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy by boat. He crossed the Channel from France to the UK on ۱۶ May ۲۰۲۲ and claimed asylum.
The Home Office rejected his trafficking claim, arguing that because he had not been subjected to forced labour by his kidnappers, his experience did not meet the definition of exploitation in the trafficking rules. He challenged the decision in the high court, which ruled in his favour. The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, appealed against the ruling.
While the government has pledged to support trafficking victims, the decision to exclude asylum seekers kidnapped for ransom in Libya has denied many the support the judges ruled they may be entitled to. Recent freedom of information data relating to asylum seekers who were confirmed to be genuine trafficking victims found that of the ۱,۷۷۸ confirmed victims between July ۲۰۲۴ and July ۲۰۲۵, ۸۹% were forcibly removed from the UK, putting them at risk of being trafficked again.
While each trafficking claim must be considered on the facts of the individual case, the judgment found: “The secretary of state erred in not considering the question of whether kidnapping amounted to exploitation.”
The ruling could help thousands of potential trafficking victims, not only those who arrive in Britain in the future but also those previously rejected as being trafficking victims who were kidnapped and held to ransom in Libya. They can now get a fresh referral into the national referral mechanism for a new decision on whether there are reasonable grounds for them to be considered a victim of trafficking.
after newsletter promotion
Jeremy Bloom, a consultant solicitor at Duncan Lewis, who represented the Syrian man, welcomed the ruling. “This judgment is a vindication of my client’s claim to be a victim of trafficking. The Home Office sought to restrict the definition of exploitation,” he said.
“We hope that it will also assist other victims of trafficking who have experienced similarly horrendous treatment to gain access to the leave and support that they need to recover from those experiences. Those individuals may include people who have had their claims to be a victim of trafficking refused, and who might now be able to ask for a new decision based on the law as set out in this judgment.”
Home Office sources said it would not be appropriate to comment on legal proceedings. A Home Office spokesperson said:“We are simplifying and strengthening protection and immigration routes, ensuring they are clear, targeted and focused on their intended purpose, while maintaining fairness and public confidence.”
