NRM decisions and challenges

This section is up to date as of 17 July 2024, we cannot guarantee the information in this section is correct after 17 July 2024, always ensure that you check the up to date law and policy

Reasonable grounds (RG) decision

This is the first decision in the NRM process, it is not the final decision. The government will decide if they think there are reasonable grounds that the person referred to them is a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. This legal test was recently changed in January 2023, when section 60 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force. This means that sections 49-50 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were amended. The decision maker used to have to decide if there are reasonable grounds that a person “may be” a victim of modern slavery; they now have to decide if they think there are reasonable grounds that the person referred to them “is” a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking.

How long does it take?

Once a NRM referral form is completed and submitted, the Competent Authority aims to make a reasonable grounds decision within 5 working days, however there can be delays.

What is the standard of proof?

‘Standard of proof’ means the level of certainty and the degree of evidence needed for making a decision or judgment in a legal case. For the RG decision, the standard of proof is that there are ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that the person is a victim of trafficking.

The guidance published following the entry into force of section 60 of NABA required objective evidence for a positive reasonable grounds decision to be made, however this is not now required. The change was made following a judicial review challenge that led to the Home Secretary agreeing to withdraw, reconsider and revise parts of the guidance.

The guidance published on 24 July 2023, and updated on 9 October 2023, provides:

Standard of proof and core principles for Reasonable Grounds decisions
14.50. The Reasonable Grounds threshold is met when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
14.51. The Reasonable Grounds threshold is lower than the Conclusive Grounds threshold, which is decided on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, at the Reasonable Grounds stage a decision maker need not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a potential victim is a victim of modern slavery in coming to a positive Reasonable Grounds decision.
14.52. The Reasonable Grounds threshold is an objective one. The decision maker must agree with the statement that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of modern slavery (human trafficking or slavery, servitude, or forced or compulsory labour)”.
14.53. A decision maker should consider whether the Reasonable Grounds threshold is satisfied, taking into account all of the information available, including the victim’s account and any other relevant information that supports or undermines it, including but not limited to: eyewitness testimony, medical or expert reports, travel records, police investigations, general evidence such as Country Reports, or supporting evidence of the person’s exploitation the First Responder provides, such as observed modern slavery indicators”.

We recommend that you check the government’s statutory guidance section on Reasonable Grounds decisions as there is a lot of detail provided on what kind of evidence the competent authority will consider at this stage, how it will be considered and how the decision makers evaluate claims where there are inconsistencies or lack of detail. It is important to remember that the competent authority can grant a positive RG decision even where it is not possible to obtain any other evidence except the NRM form, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Should a survivor have a lawyer before an RG decision is made?

Ideally a survivor would receive advice and representation from an experienced lawyer before an RG decision is made (see our section on legal advice). This is because it is a first decision in a complex legal process. Unfortunately ATLEU is aware of many cases of genuine survivors who receive negative NRM decisions that are later overturned. There is no automatic right of appeal to challenge a negative RG decision, they can only be challenged by a reconsideration request or a judicial review (see our section on legal challenges of NRM decisions), which is why it’s important to make sure the process and the evidence submitted is the best it can be in the first instance.

What should I do if there is no lawyer available?

It is very important to understand that the NRM process is a legal process. A support professional can potentially damage someone’s legal case by giving too many details too soon, before someone has had the opportunity to comment on all information that has been written about them and/or been in a position to fully disclose their account and/or had legal advice. If you are supporting a survivor at this stage in the NRM process and they have been unable to instruct an experienced lawyer, there are still some useful actions you can do:

1. Keep trying to help them to find an experienced legal aid lawyer to take their case, record your efforts doing this as it can help later if they have problems because of not having legal representation.
2. Request relevant documentation about their case on their behalf (with their signed consent to do so). There is a risk that they could be given a negative RG decision based on information held about them that they were not aware of and have not had the possibility to comment on. It may be helpful to communicate with the Competent Authority and explain which disclosure records are not yet available and that the survivor should not be prejudiced for information written about them that they have not had the opportunity to comment on with a legal representative.
3. If there were problems in the NRM referral process (for example, issues with interpreters, no informed consent) these could also be flagged as broad concerns, but take care not go into too much detail about this before someone has been able to instruct a legal representative and before they have got the relevant documentation held about them.
4. If there are concerns about any vulnerabilities, safeguarding or support needs, these could also be flagged as broad concerns, but take care not go into too much detail about this before someone has been able to instruct a legal representative and before they have got the relevant documentation held about them. At this stage, if you are not a lawyer and/or you do not have all the relevant documentation, do not try to summarise a survivor’s account of modern slavery except for indisputable facts (e.g. their nationality, their disability, where they were encountered by the authorities)

Positive Reasonable Grounds decision

This is when a person is considered to be a potential victim of modern slavery and will be supported under the NRM.

Reflection and Recovery Period

This is the period between the positive RG decision and the CG decision. The victim can access support to help them recover from their experiences and the government has more time to make their decision about whether the person is definitely a victim or not. In the UK this is currently at least 30 days, but delays in decision making often mean that a survivor is waiting much longer than 30 days. A person will not have a CG decision made within the first 30 days.

No entitlement to additional recovery period
Under section 62 of NABA there is no entitlement to an additional recovery period where a CA has made a positive RG decision and a further positive RG decision is made which arises from “things done wholly before the first RG decision was made”. The CA may determine that a further recovery period will be given. This is unlikely to apply to many people as most people will have already addressed what had happened to them before the first RG decision when they went into the NRM the first time. However if this does apply to a survivor, the government’s statutory guidance has a section on this called Making an additional Recovery Period Decision.

What rights does the victim have now?

The RG decision gives the victim substantial rights. It is the ‘gateway decision’ for the victim to access:

• A ‘recovery and reflection period’ of at least 30 calendar days, following the entry into force of section 61 of NABA on 30 January 2023 (in keeping with Article 13 ECAT). This is to enable the victim to access services and support they need to start recovery.
• Support, financial subsistence and accommodation. Under S64 NABA 2022 the SSHD must secure any necessary assistance and support to a potential victim in their recovery. The government provides this support through the Victim Care Contract via its contractor, The Salvation Army. The Salvation Army sub-contracts to other charities who provide safe houses and outreach support for survivors with a positive RG/CG decision.
• Protection from removal from the UK (the decision raises a barrier to removal and a presumption against detention unless the public order disqualification applies)
• A detailed needs based assessment and full risk assessment
• Emotional and practical help by way of a support worker in a safe house if the victim is given accommodation or via an outreach support worker if they are not given or do not want accommodation.
• Free healthcare including secondary care. Please note that a positive RG decision will also wipe any NHS debts prior to the RG decision, because it is considered that there will always have been reasonable grounds that the person is trafficked, even though the RG decision was made later. However if the person later receives a negative CG decision, secondary healthcare will no longer be available, unless via another way – such as being an asylum seeker.
• Free legal advice. Please note that an RG decision is an opportunity for potential victims to access immigration legal aid on any issue (not just asylum or human rights claims), which is an advantage as immigration cases have generally been out of scope for legal aid since April 2013. A RG decision gives the right to legal aid for immigration advice for any type of immigration leave application under paras 32 and 32A Schedule 1 Part 1 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Other types of legal advice can be accessed for free via legal aid even if a positive reasonable grounds decision is not made (eg housing, public law, compensation advice. The victim should be signposted for any free advice they may need.) Legal aid is complicated, please see our section on legal aid.

All potential victims with a positive RG should have access to the trafficking recovery entitlements that we have listed above, unless a public order or bad faith disqualification is applied to their case under section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA). See the sections on public order and bad faith disqualifications in the government’s Statutory Guidance and also in S64(5) NABA. If a potential victim is in a prison or a detention centre, it is those institutions who are responsible for assessing the needs for support and providing the trafficking recovery support. There is guidance that detention centres and prisons should follow, please see our section on prisons and detention centres in our housing and support section.

Negative Reasonable Grounds decision

The competent authority can make a negative Reasonable Grounds decision if the decision maker decides that there are not reasonable grounds that the person referred to them is a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. The statutory guidance has a detailed section on the actions the decision maker must take when a decision is made. Importantly the adult concerned must have the decision issued to them or through their appointed representative. Also, case law tells us that the decision not only needs to be provided or “served” on the person it concerns, but the principle of fairness generally requires a person to have access to legal advice and to be able to communicate confidentially with a legal advisor as part of the fundamental right of access to justice and the courts. ATLEU is aware of cases where negative decisions were made but the survivor was not provided a copy of that decision, this is something that can be legally challenged.

If a person has been receiving emergency NRM support prior to a RG decision and the RG decision is negative, they will exit MSVCC support following nine working days of move on support.

Challenges to NRM decisions

NRM decisions (Reasonable Grounds/Conclusive Grounds) can be challenged in two ways:

1) Reconsideration
2) Judicial review

1) Reconsideration request

A survivor or someone supporting the survivor can ask the Competent Authority to look at the decision again if they think the decision is not in line with the guidance or if there is new evidence. The guidance on reconsideration requests changed without notice on 12 February 2024, version 3.7. The guidance says that the Competent Authority would need to be satisfied that there are “good reasons” to reconsider the case. The guidance also makes it clear that an explanation needs to be provided to explain why any evidence was not provided in advance of the negative reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decision.  

Who can submit a reconsideration request?

An immigration legal representative can prepare and submit a reconsideration request under an existing immigration legal help file if the trafficking issue is related to the asylum claim, if there is one, or a public law legal help file if not (public law representatives can also work on public law files). Check our pages on legal advice for more information.

It is possible for individuals who are not lawyers to submit a reconsideration request because the guidance states that ‘an individual, or someone acting on their behalf can submit a reconsideration request‘. However, if you are not a lawyer and you wish to support someone by assisting them to submit a reconsideration request, you should only do so if you have had training on how to do so without damaging the person’s legal case. ATLEU does run training on this subject for support professionals and lawyers. If the case is urgent ATLEU can be contacted via our third party advice line: advice@atleu.org.uk or if you want to refer a case to us the email is referrals@atleu.org.uk. 

If you or a survivor does not feel that you are in a position to submit a properly prepared reconsideration request, see below about requesting an extension of time. It is better to request an extension of time than submit a poorly prepared reconsideration request. The refusal to grant an extension of time can also be challenged by way of judicial review. However a poorly prepared reconsideration can add to the complexities and credibility issues in the case if a survivor has not had a proper opportunity to address documents, inconsistencies and produce evidence in a trauma informed way. This may also lead to less chance of success in a judicial review.  

How is a reconsideration request submitted?

The guidance says you send the request by email to the decision maker. The guidance says that requests to the Single Competent Authority (SCA) may be made by emailing nrm@modernslavery.gov.uk. Requests to the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) may be made by emailing TechnicalSpecialistsIECA@homeoffice.gov.uk.

The guidance says that you must provide the following information:

• Name of the individual in receipt of a negative decision  
• Date of birth
• Nationality of the individual
• NRM reference number
• Basis of request i.e., ‘not in line with guidance’ or ‘new available evidence’  
• Reasons for the reconsideration request, including new available evidence where applicable. 
• Where new evidence is being provided, an explanation as to why this evidence was not provided earlier.

ATLEU recommends also including:

• Reasons for requesting an extension of time and if it meets the “exceptional circumstances” test if relevant. This would include reasons a survivor cannot meet the one-month deadline (with evidence which supports their reasons) and a timeframe by which they expect to have obtained the relevant information. See the section on extension requests below. If the one month deadline has already passed, provide reasons for this and ask for the extension request to be considered out of time. 

• If submitting a second reconsideration request, explain why there are good reasons for the Competent Authority to accept a second reconsideration request
• We strongly advise listing in the reconsideration request any documentation that the survivor does not have a copy of and requesting disclosure of this information before the survivor provides information to address inconsistencies. You can ask the decision maker not to prejudice the survivor in relation to information on documents that they have not had the opportunity to comment on. You can make separate subject access requests for documentation that is missing and we advise that you do this as soon as possible. See our section on getting documents. We also recommend that if you are not legal representatives, explaining efforts to secure legal representation and explaining any limitations on your organisation to support survivors in preparing reconsideration requests. 

What is the deadline?

The guidance states that there is a one month deadline for bringing a reconsideration request, which includes submitting any further evidence. The guidance provides examples of what kind of evidence may be considered to be “new evidence”:

• Evidence from the police that the individual has been the victim of a crime of modern slavery.  
• A judgment from the Immigration & Asylum Chamber or other court/tribunal involved in immigration processes that an individual with a negative NRM decision is a victim of modern slavery.  
• A successful use of the section 45 defence in court (see Annex H)  
• Evidence that provides possible explanations for inconsistencies in a potential victim’s account of modern slavery e.g., a medical report detailing inability to provide a coherent account of their experience of modern slavery. 
• Factual evidence that demonstrates that one of the conclusions drawn by the CA is incorrect.  
• Evidence that suggests that the ‘Making a Conclusive Grounds Decision’ section in the statutory guidance has been followed incorrectly. 

This is not an exhaustive list however ATLEU’s view is the types of examples given would be almost impossible for most survivors to provide within only one month. 

Firstly, reconsideration requests should be prepared with care as it is part of a legal process. Whether or not a reconsideration request is accepted is crucial for survivors so that they can access support and be identified as a victim, they should not be rushed because mistakes can have a significant detrimental impact on survivors. 

If possible an experienced legal aid representative should be instructed. There are real shortages in the legal aid sector of experienced legal representatives to take on cases, so it is likely that a survivor would not be able to instruct a lawyer, let alone prepare evidence within one month. Even where an experienced representative is instructed, taking a detailed account from a survivor would very likely take more than one month as multiple sessions would be needed with breaks in between appointments in order to take an account in a trauma informed way. Furthermore, before taking a detailed account the legal representative must have access to all the documentation that the negative decision is based on. Our recent experience is that we have not been disclosed this information for at least a month after it was requested. 

Factual evidence can often be addressed by medical evidence or Medico Legal Reports (MLR) but there are delays in the NHS and even when an expert is available for an MLR it would take longer than a month to secure funding, have an assessment and have enough time for the expert to write the report. Moreover, there are currently long delays before appointments can be arranged at the moment. 

Evidence from the police or Tribunal/Court hearings would very likely take a long time to produce and it is likely to be out of the control of the survivor. Further, in order to be successful in such cases, it may require the NRM decision itself to be overturned in the first instance. 

Extension requests

The guidance states that if a reconsideration request on the basis of new evidence cannot be submitted within one month of the negative decision, they should contact the Competent Authority as early as possible and request a reconsideration request extension. The guidance states that reasons should be provided for not being able to meet the one-month deadline (with evidence which supports their reasons) and a timeframe by which they expect to have obtained the relevant information.

The guidance also states that circumstances are only likely to be deemed exceptional if an individual is likely to unable to obtain or provide information to the Competent Authority for reasons beyond their control, if safeguarding concerns are present, if an individual has recently left an exploitative situation or for reasons to which the individual could not have reasonably foreseen.  

ATLEU’s view is that it is unlawful that extensions only seem to be available for reconsideration requests on the basis of “new evidence”. There will be many survivors with good reasons to request a reconsideration on the basis that the decision was not in line with the guidance, but cannot do so within one month – for example, those without experienced legal representatives, especially when the NRM does not disclose the evidence the decisions were based on. 

ATLEU’s view is that if there are “good reasons” for the reconsideration request to be accepted, the threshold extending time, including what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” must be a low threshold, otherwise the policy cannot operate lawfully.

Timeframe for responses as to whether the Reconsideration Request is accepted

The guidance says:

The relevant competent authority must notify the requestor in writing as to whether the decision is to be reconsidered or not. Where it is not, the relevant competent authority must inform the requestor of the reasons for this. The relevant competent authority should notify the requestor within nine working days, where possible, whether it will reconsider the decision or not. Where a decision is to be reconsidered, a new decision should be made as soon as possible when there is sufficient information available to do so.

Challenges to refusals to accept reconsideration requests or accept requests for an extension of time

When submitting a reconsideration request, ensure that you address the reconsideration policy as above in the request itself in the first instance. If those reasons are rejected, or if the policy wasn’t addressed in the first instance, you can submit further representations or a pre-action letter to the Competent Authority. We have explained the pre-action letter and judicial review process in more detail below.

You can address the individual circumstances of the case and why the “good reasons” or “exceptional circumstances” tests should apply to your case. ATLEU’s view is that if there is evidence which is new, or was not previously properly investigated or analysed that shows an individual may be identified as a victim of trafficking, this should amount to a “good reason”. If there are parts of the policy that you are unable to meet, for example, you can’t provide a timeframe for an extension request or don’t have evidence to back up reasons, just explain why this is the case. It may be that the survivor has difficult circumstances but they are not “exceptional” or uncommon to others in their position. It is difficult assisting or representing survivors and the policy should be able to be flexible enough for these situations. It can be explained that as there are “good reasons” for the reconsideration request to be accepted, the threshold for accepting evidence, extending time or accepting more than one reconsideration request must be a low threshold, otherwise the policy cannot operate lawfully.  

Unfortunately ATLEU is already aware of many survivors having their reconsideration requests refused where there were “good reasons” to reconsider their case. ATLEU’s view is either the time limit and extension policy should be withdrawn entirely or this policy cannot operate lawfully unless it is sufficiently flexible and survivors can have their cases properly investigated even when they do not have access to experienced legal representation. 

ATLEU’s view is that there must be scope for submitting more than one reconsideration request if necessary. Similarly the threshold for what constitutes a “good reason” or “exceptional circumstances” must be understood to be a very low threshold. Under the Anti-Trafficking Convention (ECAT) Article 10 and the ECHR Article 4, the UK is always under a duty to identify, investigate, protect and support victims of modern slavery and trafficking where there is a “credible suspicion” that an identified individual had been, or was at real and immediate risk of being, trafficked or exploited. There are no deadlines or cut off points under ECAT or Article 4. Please contact ATLEU for further advice on reconsiderations as we believe the policy as it is currently operating is unlawful.

If the reconsideration request is rejected again, or if the case is very urgent and there is no time for further representations, the next step is sending a pre-action letter, which would normally be done by an experienced public law or immigration law solicitor. Please see the section below on judicial reviews. 

Support

As soon as the competent authority agrees to reconsider a case, ATLEU’s view is that the potential victim is entitled to reinstatement of NRM support if they want and need it. If it is a reconsideration of a negative RG decision, they would be entitled to the emergency support that individuals receive prior to an RG decision. If a reconsideration of a CG decision is accepted, the client has effective Reasonable Grounds (RG) status again. However since the statutory guidance on 12 February 2024 changed, support is not automatically reinstated, the guidance now says that if the potential victim has already left support, their support needs may need to be assessed before re-entering support:

Where the relevant competent authority has decided to reconsider a negative Conclusive Grounds decision, the individual in question will again be considered a potential victim in the NRM and able to access support accordingly, whilst a new conclusive grounds decision is made unless they are subject to disqualification under Section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 or Section 22 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Where the potential victim has already left support, their support needs may need to be assessed before re-entering support.

The guidance also states that an extension of support can be requested if the Competent Authority has not yet informed the survivor if the reconsideration request is accepted or not: 

An extension request should be submitted by the Support Provider to the Competent Authorities if an individual is expected to exit support following a negative Conclusive Grounds decision and the relevant Competent Authority has not yet informed the requestor that they have accepted a request for reconsideration and the support provider believes the individual should remain in support. Please see the ‘Extension requests’ section of this guidance which provides more detail on extension requests to remain in support.

A survivor’s support needs should be made clear in a reconsideration request. Extension requests for support can be provided in much wider circumstances than only when the survivor is waiting for a response on their reconsideration request. See the “Extension Requests” section of Annex F in the guidance. MSVCC support workers should make the extension requests, but it can cover, for example, evidence of destitution, progress made with “planned actions” which ATLEU’s view is that it could include progressing a legal case such as preparing a reconsideration request or transitioning into other support. 

If a judicial review is lodged in relation to a failure to accept a reconsideration request, “interim relief” or an “injunction” could be sought in order to secure MSVCC support. ATLEU’s advice is that it is better to put forward strong evidence of why the appropriate support is needed and try to secure this through legal processes rather than settling for support or accommodation that is inadequate as this can lead to re-trafficking risks and or other trauma/risk/mental health trauma. See our section on Housing and Support. 

2) Judicial review

This is a process where the survivor asks a judge in the High Court to review a decision by the Competent Authority that they think is unlawful, unfair or irrational. A lawyer can advise on this under legal aid. Look for an immigration or public law lawyer, see our legal aid section.

It is important to act quickly and any court action must be taken no later than 3 months after the date of the decision under challenge.

Please note, judicial reviews require strong procedural and/or evidential arguments and an experienced legal representative in order to have a good chance of success. Losing a judicial review can have serious consequences such as negative credibility findings from a judge and/or a litigation debt because ordinarily the losing party pays the costs of the successful party (unless the Claimant is protected from this because they are represented via legal aid). Both these consequences may prevent someone from being able to regularise their immigration status and increase safeguarding risks. Legal representatives should ensure that they are properly qualified and experienced, and have legal aid funding, to undertake a judicial review in this complex area of law.

It can be advisable, depending on the urgency of the case, to submit a reconsideration request with stronger evidence first, rather than attempting a judicial review when the evidence before the decision maker may not have been as strong or comprehensive as possible. If the survivor then receives a further negative decision, that second negative decision can be challenged within three months by way of judicial review, however the prospects of success should be stronger. There is legal aid available to give someone advice and assistance with judicial review.

Further information and support on NRM challenges

ATLEU regularly runs training courses for support professionals and lawyers on challenging negative NRM decisions, including by way of judicial review. ATLEU can also be contacted by third party professionals who support survivors in relation to specific questions about reconsideration requests, or indeed any issues affecting survivors by contacting our advice line: advice@atleu.org.uk

Public Order and Bad Faith Disqualifications

Section 63 (disqualification from protection) of NABA, which came into force on 30 January 2023, provides a discretion for the competent authority to disqualify a potential victim (who has received a positive RG decision) from protection where they are deemed to:

• be a “threat to public order” (Public Order Disqualification or “POD” under s63(3), including where the person is a foreign criminal within the meaning given by section 32(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (automatic deportation for foreign criminals);
• have claimed to be a victim in “bad faith” (Bad Faith Disqualification)

Under NABA they lose these benefits of the NRM:

• Prohibition on removal (under ss 60-61; see s63(2)(a) NABA)
• Consideration for leave to remain (under s65 NABA; see s63(2)(b) and VTS 2.1 of the Immigration Rules)
• the right to assistance and support (see s64 NABA inserting s50A(5) Modern Slavery Act 2015)
• where a CG decision has not yet been made, a CG decision will not be made (Guidance (para 14.232 for POD and para 14.285 for Bad Faith Disqualification). The Guidance goes beyond NABA which does not remove the right to get a CG decision.

The Explanatory Notes to NABA say: section 63(2) “is in keeping with the UK’s ECAT obligations”. Article 13 of ECAT provides for a recovery and reflection period of 30 days for potential victims. The ECAT Explanatory Report reads: “Paragraph 3 of Article 13 allows Parties not to observe this period if grounds of public order prevent it or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly. This provision aims to guarantee that victims’ status will not be illegitimately used.” 

Under the Guidance (para 14.231(c) for POD and para 14.283 for Bad Faith Disqualification), potential or actual victims can be denied a recovery period or modern slavery specific assistance and support.

Following a recent legal challenge, the guidance does now require caseworkers to consider whether there is a risk of re-trafficking in the UK. Also the guidance does state that if someone was forced to commit the criminal offence, this could be considered as low risk to the public, when caseworkers weigh up whether to apply the POD, although the guidance goes on to stated that “this indicator alone is not sufficient to categorise as low”. Since the POD was introduced, high numbers of cases referred for consideration have resulted in the POD being applied, which means that many survivors are likely being denied protection from their traffickers e.g. a place in a safehouse, even if the potential victim was forced to commit the criminal offence by their traffickers. 

There is no right of appeal against a decision to disqualify a survivor from protection. The reconsiderations policy in the guidance does not apply. The decision must be challenged by judicial review. It is important to challenge POD decisions where possible. For example, it may be possible to argue a breach of Article 4 positive obligations, irrationality (e.g. where a person is disqualified for criminality that arose from their trafficking) etc.  

A second pair of eyes review must take place and decision-makers must keep a detailed consideration minute. 

Public Order Disqualifications (POD) Process

PODs can apply to “those whose NRM Referral was made before 30 January 2023”. The POD will only apply to individuals who received a CG decision before 30 January 2023 “if new information comes to light or concerns are raised at a later date for example an offence is committed after the 30 January 2023 that would meet the disqualification threshold”.

The guidance sets out a guide for decision-makers and relevant documents needed to make a POD decision: ‘Public Order Decision Making Framework’. 

Discretion should be exercised to balance whether the threat to public order is outweighed by the need for modern slavery specific support. There is a high bar. 

Decision-makers should make a reasonable assessment as to whether, in respect of receiving modern slavery specific protections only:

• the individual is a high, or low threat to public order.
• the individual has a high or low need for modern slavery specific protections.

“There is no expectation for decision makers to undertake extensive investigation to support their decision”.

If the individual is a child, decision-makers must consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration under s55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, and Art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 before making a POD decision. 

For British nationals and non-detained individuals there is a window of 10 working days to respond to a disqualification request 

The 10-day window does not apply to Foreign National Offenders and can be made without notice. 

Bad Faith Disqualifications

Children who were under 18 at the time of the relevant RG decision are exempt from disqualification on grounds of bad faith.

Individuals will be given the opportunity to provide explanatory evidence once the decision-maker has communicated their intention to apply the disqualification within 10 working days

Decision-makers should consider whether there are any credible explanations for gaps in evidence or a lack of credibility when deciding whether to apply the bad faith disqualification; they should consider Annex D – Working with Vulnerable People.