Background
LBZ, a Chinese national living in the United Kingdom since 2018, claimed that he had been trafficked and exploited while working in kitchens and construction. The Home Secretary accepted his account of physical abuse, withheld or reduced wages, work-linked accommodation and vulnerability. A decision dated 28 October 2025 nevertheless found no reasonable grounds to believe that he was a trafficking victim. Although the “action” and “means” elements of trafficking were accepted, the decision-maker concluded that the required exploitative purpose was absent because LBZ had entered and left the jobs voluntarily, worked from economic necessity and was not made to work under menace of a penalty.
After reconsideration was refused, LBZ sought judicial review on four grounds. He alleged that the Home Secretary’s statutory guidance and decision annex misstated the law; that the guidance and evidence had been misapplied to his circumstances; that the Home Secretary had failed to ask the correct questions or make reasonable inquiries; and that the decision breached the positive obligations arising under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission was refused on the papers, and LBZ renewed his application at an oral hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Sheldon refused permission on Ground 1. He held that it was not arguable that the statutory guidance or decision annex unlawfully restricted the concept of exploitation to forced labour or applied an incorrect definition of forced labour. The materials recognized several forms of exploitation and correctly treated adult trafficking as requiring action, means and an exploitative purpose. Their description of forced labour—including work exacted under menace of a penalty and the possibility of psychological or immigration-related pressure—properly reflected the governing legal framework.
The Court granted permission on Grounds 2 through 4. It was arguable that the legally valid framework had been misapplied to LBZ’s particular facts, including the violence, wage withholding, vulnerability and expert medical evidence. The substantive judicial review may therefore examine the application of the guidance, the adequacy of the Home Secretary’s inquiries and compliance with Article 4 obligations, but LBZ may not renew his general challenge to the lawfulness of the guidance or decision annex.
Key Takeaways
- The Court upheld, at the permission stage, the legality of the Home Secretary’s general guidance and decision framework for identifying trafficking and forced labour.
- Whether that framework was properly applied to LBZ’s accepted account—including physical abuse, withheld wages and vulnerability—was sufficiently arguable to proceed.
- The judgment did not decide that LBZ was a trafficking victim or quash the negative reasonable-grounds decision; it determined which grounds could advance to a substantive hearing.
Why It Matters
The ruling separates a general attack on the United Kingdom’s trafficking guidance from a fact-specific challenge to its application. Although the Court found the guidance legally sound, it emphasized that indicators such as violence, abuse of vulnerability and withheld wages must still be assessed properly in an individual case.
For practitioners, the decision confirms that a claimant may fail to establish an arguable systemic defect in the governing policy yet still obtain judicial review of how officials evaluated evidence, conducted inquiries and discharged Article 4 identification and protection duties.