The experience of many survivors of modern slavery in the UK will include contact with the asylum system; for those trafficked from outside the EU who have no official status in the UK, applying for asylum may be a viable option for them. Whilst it is beyond the remit of this report to address the functions and effectiveness of the wider asylum process, it is important to highlight some of the key ways in which this process affects a victim of modern slavery.58
As has already been discussed in Chapter Three, the UKBA is not adequately placed to make the decision over whether or not a person has been trafficked. It is also essential that the issue of trafficking does not become unhelpfully conflated with issues of asylum. While there may be some information and evidence overlap, the two decisions – whether someone has been trafficked and whether someone has grounds for asylum – have different burdens of proof and should be kept separate. One may inform the other, but it is not necessary for the same agency – in some cases the same person – to make these two very different decisions. Worryingly, one UKBA Competent Authority told the CSJ that if an asylum claim on the grounds of trafficking is refused, but a positive Conclusive Grounds decision is then given, this is ‘not going to be helpful’.59 This illustrates the damaging links between the two processes; a
person could be refused asylum but may still have been trafficked, and these two decisions must be made separately.
58 For the CSJ’s discussion on the asylum system, see The Centre for Social Justice, Asylum Matters: Restoring Trust in the UK Asylum System,
London: Centre for Social Justice, December 2008
59 Anonymous UKBA Competent Authority, in evidence to the CSJ
‘For this client group, you shouldn’t have to ‘get around’ things.
There should be provisions there.’
Aftercare provider, in evidence to the CSJ
‘If you turn somebody down for one, how are you going to give a
different decision for the other?’
It Happens Here | Supporting survivors 185
six
‘We see a number of asylum refusals emerge at the same time a
NRM refusal is issued.’
Anonymous charity, in evidence to the CSJ
Figure 6.1: The asylum process
ASYLUM APPLICATION MADE
Screening interview – Croydon ASU (Fingerprints
and photograph taken, and information regarding personal
details and dependants) Possible Detained Fast
Track (DFT)
Possible detention pending removal – if
another country responsible)
Case owner allocated
First meeting with case owner (Process explained and any special
needs registered)
Asylum interview by case owner (Applicant explains why they fear return)
Await decision (No entitlement to work)
ASYLUM GRANTED ASYLUM REFUSED
Five years in
the UK voluntary Assisted
return or detention and enforced removal Appeal (Possible humanitarian protection or temporary leave, possible reconsideration, or refusal maintained)
6.9.1 Asylum: a survivor’s experience
A proportion of people trafficked into the UK, upon exiting their situation, may be eligible to apply for asylum. For many, this entails a long journey to the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon:
‘The whole asylum process – having to travel to Croydon and wait up to five or six hours for a meeting, having to specify that a private room is needed so the person doesn’t have to share their story in a place where others can hear it, and having to wait again for a room to become available – it’s very taxing on a victim of trafficking, and you cannot expect them to do it on their own, but the funding means that often they must’.60
Aftercare providers have expressed serious fears that staff at the Asylum Screening Unit are not trained deal with victims of trafficking, and reports of insensitive handling of cases have concerned the CSJ. One organisation taking a woman who had been trafficked to her screening interview were told they were not entitled to a private room, despite the sensitive nature of the woman’s experience.61
In light of this, some aftercare providers have told the CSJ of local agreements that they have formed with the UKBA office in their region. In these cases, an asylum screening interview can take place at these local offices, avoiding the cost and stress of travelling to Croydon and ensuring that the survivor is appropriately supported through a potentially traumatic experience. This is best practice and the kind of partnership-working arrangement that the CSJ recommends should be replicated across the country.
The Poppy Project has arrangements in place to conduct the screening interview at one of their premises, to ensure that their client is not subject to further intimidation or fear. A representative from the organisation explained that this arrangement can help to ensure that a person who may be frightened or intimidated feels safe enough to share their experience: ‘we have a person who comes and conducts screening interviews at our centre – we get a lot more information’. However it still remains that other aftercare providers have no such local arrangements.62
60 Becky, victim support worker, in evidence to the CSJ 61 Anonymous aftercare provider, in evidence to the CSJ 62 The Poppy Project, in evidence to the CSJ, August 2012
‘You get such a range of people behind that wall of glass in
Croydon, there’s a range of responses you can be given.’
Medaille Trust staff member, in evidence to the CSJ