Resource

Over 10 years ago, Asylum Aid’s client, EO, a survivor of trafficking, was sentenced to 12 months in prison for a single offence – fraud. She had recently escaped a horrific situation of sexual exploitation, was homeless and begging for food. She was diagnosed with HIV and epilepsy, suffering brain injury from historic infections, and has a history of strokes. Out of desperation, she accepted a friend’s offer to get her a false identity document so she could work and earn money to eat. After serving her sentence, she was released in 2014 and was assessed as posing a very low risk to the public by a probation officer a year later.  

In January 2024, she was formally recognised as a potential victim of trafficking by the National Referral Mechanism (the UK’s system for identifying and supporting someone as a victim of trafficking) and started receiving vital assistance. Yet, not long after, she was notified that the Home Office were considering barring her from the support she most needed. Under section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), she could be disqualified because of her 2014 conviction of fraud and the deportation order that she had received as a consequence of her 12-month imprisonment. She was considered a ‘threat to public order’. 

On EO’s behalf, Asylum Aid challenged the decision to disqualify EO and the policy which led to her disqualification. A few days before the final hearing was due to take place on 25th February, the Home Office withdrew the decision to disqualify EO and agreed to make a new decision within two months. But not all survivors have access to legal representation and are able to challenge these decisions. EO’s case is a powerful example of the serious concerns being raised by MPs in debates on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill about the ‘public order disqualification’ that would be retained under this Bill. 

Blocked from protection 

Section 63 of NABA allows for the disqualification of survivors of trafficking from modern slavery protections on ‘bad faith’ or ‘public order’ grounds, including convictions that could have been the result of their exploitation. So, for example, if a Vietnamese young person forced to work in a cannabis farm is subsequently imprisoned for over 12 months they could find themselves blocked entirely from any support and protection as a victim of trafficking once released. This includes housing, financial support and permission to remain in the UK to assist with criminal proceedings. Research has shown that it is common for survivors of trafficking to be prosecuted and convicted for the offences they had committed as a result of their exploitation. Professionals that they meeet in the UK can fail to detect indicators of trafficking or act upon them. Between January 2023 and September 2024, 494 people were disqualified on public order grounds.  

Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, if enacted, would make the disqualification of victims like EO a ‘duty’, rather than a ‘discretion’. It extends the scope of the disqualification to any non-British survivor convicted of an offence of any length of sentence. Despite repealing much of the IMA, the Border Security Bill fails to repeal section 29, leaving survivors, many of whom may have committed offences under coercion, at even greater risk of being denied access to identification, support and protection. EO’s circumstances demonstrate how catastrophic this would be for her, and for all victims of trafficking like her.  

Further criminalisation  

What is worse, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill also aims to tackle smuggling gangs by extending criminal offences. These could easily end up penalising survivors of trafficking. For example, clause 18 creates the criminal offence of endangering others during a sea crossing. It is clearly aimed at those inside small boats and a dangerous escalation of the criminalisation powers that already exist under the NABA. These have already resulted in over 500 prosecutions, including of children wrongly assessed to be adults. This clause will likely result in the prosecution of vulnerable people acting out of sheer desperation or under the coercive power of traffickers. 

As Karen Bradley MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, said during the Second Reading debate on the Bill :  

"…modern slavery is not a migration crime; it is a financial crime. It is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial profit, and we must not confuse the two. If somebody chooses to pay a people smuggler to put them in an unsafe vessel, that is a crime, but it is a consensual crime. If somebody has been forced to get into an unsafe vessel, that is a coercive crime and needs to be treated differently."  

The Labour government has asserted its commitment to respecting international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, its approach to survivors of trafficking risks breaching both the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and Article 4 of the ECHR, which imposes a "positive obligation" on states to identify potential victims of trafficking and provide support and assistance to them.  

The previous government’s narrative that people were abusing modern slavery protections to avoid removal from the UK was shown to be false. Further criminalisation and measures blocking people from protection will do nothing to address the causes of forced displacement and unauthorised movement to the UK. It will instead deny men, women and children, who have been trafficked and have survived exploitation, critical support and a chance to rebuild their lives.