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

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0086

Parties

Appellant(s)

VLT

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did the Secretary of State lawfully refuse VLT’s application for leave to remain in the UK?

Facts

The appellant is a Vietnamese national, anonymised in these proceedings as “VLT”. VLT was trafficked into the UK in 2009 and forced to cultivate cannabis. In 2012, he was convicted of conspiracy to cultivate cannabis and sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. In January 2013, the respondent (“the Secretary of State”) made an order to deport VLT to Vietnam. After being deported, VLT was re-trafficked back to the UK in 2015 and, after he was encountered by UK immigration authorities, was again deported to Vietnam. VLT was then re-trafficked to the UK for the third time in 2018. On 29 May 2018, VLT was referred to the National Referral Mechanism, the procedure used for assessing whether a person is a victim of trafficking. On 1 June 2018, VLT also claimed asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear of being re-trafficked on return to Vietnam. On 23 September 2022, a positive conclusive grounds decision was made that VLT was a victim of trafficking. Following this decision, on 10 November 2022, VLT applied for leave to remain in the UK, as his asylum claim was still outstanding. On 12 June 2023, the Secretary of State refused VLT’s application for leave to remain. The Secretary of State considered that her policy on granting discretionary leave to remain for victims of trafficking with outstanding asylum claims (“the DLP”), excluded individuals subject to a deportation order, like VLT. On 14 September 2023, VLT made a claim for judicial review of the decision to refuse him leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal allowed the claim, holding that it was unlawful for the DLP to exclude victims of trafficking subject to deportation proceedings, like VLT, as this breached article 14(1)(a) of the European Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings (“ECAT”). The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that article 14(1)(a) of ECAT was not relevant to the interpretation of the DLP and that the DLP’s exclusion for victims of trafficking subject to deportation orders was lawful. VLT now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

16 May 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top