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

02/01/2026

On 17 December 2025, Morris J handed down judgment in R (ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin). The judicial review claim was heard over 4 days on 27 and 28 February 2025 and 19 and 20 May 2025. Sian Reeves appeared for the Home Secretary (“SSHD”). This is a significant judgment relating to the interpretation of the SSHD’s obligations to potential victims of trafficking who are made the subject of a public order disqualification (“POD”) decision under section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (“NABA”).

The POD applies when the competent authority decides that an individual with a positive reasonable grounds decision is a threat to public order and that disqualification from support under the National Referral Mechanism is appropriate considering their recovery needs and risk of re-trafficking. 

The Claimant challenged the POD decision made in his individual case and also the lawfulness of the SSHD’s approach to making POD decisions as set out in the Modern Slavery: statutory guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland (“the Statutory Guidance”).

In summary, Morris J found the claim succeeded on two grounds: Under Part 5 of NABA, the SSHD remained under an obligation to proceed to a conclusive grounds decision in respect of a potential victim of trafficking for so long as that person remained in the UK, even after a POD decision had been made. The SSHD breached that obligation by deciding not to proceed to such a decision in respect of the Claimant.

• The discretion to apply the POD under s. 63 NABA had to be construed compatibility with Article 13(3) of the Council of Europe Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings (“ECAT”).The Statutory Guidance (version 3.11) was unlawful insofar as it contained a presumption in favour of making a POD and a presumption that every case falling within s.63(3)(b) and s.63(3)(f) of NABA constituted a high threat to public order. This was not compatible with Article 13(3) ECAT and the relevant parts of the Statutory Guidance constituted a misdirection of law in relation to ss. 63(1) and 63(2) NABA and a fettering of the statutory discretion conferred on the SSHD.  To the extent that the POD decision in the Claimant’s case was based on those parts of the Statutory Guidance, it was unlawful.

A link to the judgment can be found here.