Article from Women Asylum News, Issue No 80, February 09

RWRP case: Trafficking of a minor

This article documents a recent RWRP case.

The case involves a young girl who had been forced to work in the sex industry from the age of 11. The case has been ongoing for a number of years and several complications and errors have occurred. RWRP have now secured humanitarian protection for the girl and this article will discuss the details and process below.
For this article the girl involved will be referred to as ‘M.’
Case details
M is a minor born in Ghana who was orphaned from birth. At age 11 M was taken to Uganda by a man who promised money and new clothes. Shortly after arrival in Uganda, M was raped and forced to work as a domestic help where she continued to be physically and sexually abused until she ran away. M befriended prostitutes and ended up working in the sex industry in Uganda for over a year. During this time, M’s pimp promised her that she could go to school abroad and made arrangements for her to have a passport and visa. The age on the passport was 24, therefore M’s pimp organised her to dress up and look older.
When M arrived in the UK she was immediately given to a group of men who detained and repeatedly sexually assaulted her for weeks. M managed to escape and for over a year and half lived with different people she met on the streets. M stated with one couple as a babysitter; however, the husband began to sexually abuse her so she left.

Arrest and First Application for Asylum
M was arrested in November 2006 by police in South East London. Directions were set for her removal to Ghana, however as she applied for a visa from Uganda and had a Ugandan passport the removal to Ghana was suspended. M claimed asylum under Ugandan nationality and her asylum application was fast tracked. An asylum organization represented her at her asylum interview however they refused to represent her further and consequently she represented
herself at the appeal in Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre.

Civil Claim and Judicial Review
On 21st December 2006, M was advised that removal would take place on 4th January 2007; however removal did not proceed due to an incident between her and the security guards on transit to the airport. A civil claim was pursued against the security guards by her civil liberties
lawyers. A judicial review application was lodged on grounds that her removal was unlawful. These lawyers also referred her to The Poppy Project as they believed she had been trafficked into the UK. M was assessed by the Poppy Project in March 2007 and in their view she was a victim of trafficking, an issue not considered by the Immigration Judge in her claim. The Poppy
Project referred the case to RWRP.

Fresh application for asylum
RWRP took instructions from M in which she gave details of her background; sexual
abuse as a child; working as a child prostitute; sexual abuse in the UK; fear of her pimp in Uganda and her lack of understanding of the asylum process in the UK. RWRP referred M to a
paediatrician for an age assessment who concluded that M was a minor. M was also
examined by numerous mental health experts who concluded that she was suffering from a ‘complex posttraumatic stress disorder’ and they too concluded she was a minor. RWRP submitted the evidence in line with paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules which states that:
“when a human rights or asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn or treated as withdrawn under paragraph 333C of these Rules and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer
pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim
if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered.”
Expert reports including psychiatric and psychological reports were gathered and
served with the representations for asylum. A fresh claim was submitted in July 2007 and RWRP argued if M was returned to Uganda, she would be at risk of re-trafficking. The human rights arguments centred on her mental health and the risk of attempted suicide; risk of
further child prostitution on arrival and her physical and moral integrity. In respect of Ghana, it was also argued that she would be at risk of trafficking. For both countries, RWRP argued that internal relocation was not an option due to her profile as an orphaned, poor, vulnerable, female minor with a mental disorder and no familial support.
Procedurally, RWRP argued that there were a number of [recognised] barriers deterring M from being willing to reveal and report officially the details of her exploitation at the first instance. Although no reports were available at that stage of her case (notably, she was unrepresented)
RWRP argued there was a duty to reasonably assess whether M was a minor.
Notably all parties who had interviewed M after her first application stated that her appearance and demeanour provided a strong indication that she was a minor. Furthermore, M had said that she was a child prostitute and the initial decision makers were neither mindful nor sensitive to this issue and failed to give the anxious scrutiny required in such cases. In RWRP’s submission, if scrutiny of age and trafficking had been sufficiently assessed a different decision would have been reached about the Fast Track and detention process which could have influenced her asylum application. RWRP concluded that the process was unfair and the findings of the Secretary of State and the Immigration Judge cannot be relied on.

Delay
After submitting her fresh application to the Home Office in July 2007, the Home Office misplaced her file and did not acknowledge nor respond to any of the representations lodged for over a year until ECPAT UK intervened. M was invited for an interview in August 2008 but the
interview was deferred after it was identified that M’s file had been misplaced and there was no information on M’s case.
The interview was re-scheduled for September 2008 and M was informed that a decision would be made as soon as possible. The decision to grant M Humanitarian Protection was finally served
in January 2009.

Grant
According to the decision letter, the Home Office accepted that the representations amounted to a fresh application for asylum and although they refused the refugee protection aspect of the case, they accepted that M had given a credible account and that she would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. M was granted humanitarian protection for 5 years leave to remain.