Case No: CO/1634/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
11 May 2022
The Honourable Mr Justice Calver
The Queen on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Calver
1. The Claimant’s identity shall not be disclosed. For the purpose of this claim he shall be referred to as ‘AM’.
2. Forthwith and in any event no later than 4pm on Wednesday 18 May 2022, the Defendant shall provide the Claimant until further order with the support set out in Annex F of the Statutory Guidance, namely (i) financial support totalling £65 per week (making allowance for any asylum support received) and (ii) the assistance of a support worker.
3. Either party shall have liberty to apply to discharge or vary the terms of this order on 48 hours’ notice to the other.
4. Costs reserved.
1. Applying the modified American Cyanamid three stage test in the case of an application for a mandatory interim injunction:
a. The Claimant has a strong prima facie case that the failure to him with support and assistance as a potential victim of trafficking is unlawful. The Defendant has repeatedly failed to respond to the pre-action correspondence regarding her failure to provide support and assistance, despite being on notice of this issue since January 2022.
b. If interim relief were refused but the claim succeeded at trial, the Claimant will have suffered very significant prejudice. He would be left for a protracted period without the necessary tools to assist his recovery from trafficking. This places him at risk of mental deterioration and re-exploitation. Damages would therefore not be an adequate remedy if interim relief were refused. Conversely, if interim relief is granted but the claim fails at trial the Defendant will have suffered only minimal prejudice, namely providing interim support and financial assistance. In view of these considerations and the strength of the claim, the balance of convenience firmly favours the provision of support on the terms ordered.
c. In view of the delay caused by the Defendant’s apparently inexplicable and inexcusable failure to engage at all in correspondence over a period of months with this serious and apparently strong claim, I consider that exceptionally the Court should grant the order without first receiving any responsive submissions from the Defendant, but allow the Defendant liberty to apply to vary or discharge the same upon notice should she have good grounds to do so despite the foregoing.