R (on the application of S) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0082

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Home Department

Issue

Whether the difference in treatment (under the policy governing when discretionary leave to remain will be granted), as between victims of trafficking who (i) are and (ii) are not the subject of deportation proceedings, breaches Article 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Facts

This is a human rights challenge to an immigration policy. The challenge is brought under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as given force in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998). Article 14 protects against discrimination. The policy in question is a transitional policy governing discretionary leave to remain in the UK for victims of human trafficking, set out in version 10 of the Secretary of State’s guidance on discretionary leave (the “DLP”). It is transitional in the sense that it bridges a gap between a previous policy and a new one. The transitional policy makes a concession to victims of trafficking/modern slavery, but excludes from that concession victims of trafficking who are the subject of deportation proceedings (e.g. because they have been convicted of a criminal offence). S is a victim of trafficking: he is believed to have been born in Nigeria and brought to the UK as a child in the late 1980s for domestic servitude and sexual exploitation. He has been convicted of several criminal offences, including burglary and conspiracy to supply heroin and, in 2012, became the subject of a deportation order (though he was not actually deported due to a disagreement with the Nigerian authorities). He was also, however, referred to the NRM1 as a potential victim of trafficking and received a ‘positive conclusive grounds decision’, officially certifying him as such, in 2022. When the Secretary of State refused to grant him leave to remain (despite his status as a victim of trafficking) in 2023, S applied to the Upper Tribunal to have that decision judicially reviewed. The Upper Tribunal allowed his claim, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal. S now appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that the way he was excluded – by virtue of his being the subject of a deportation order – from the concession for victims of trafficking amounted to discrimination in breach of his Article 14 rights.