The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal in R (AAM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, holding that kidnapping a person and subjecting them to force or threats to extract a ransom may, depending on the facts, amount to exploitation under the statutory definition of a victim of human trafficking.
The judgment, handed down on 4 November 2026, quashed the Home Office decision that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant was a trafficking victim and remitted the matter to the Secretary of State for a fresh determination.
Facts of the case
The appellant, identified only as AAM, is a Syrian national who fled forced military conscription in July 2021. He was abducted in Libya and held for around a month between August and September 2021, during which he alleges he was beaten, deprived of food and forced to telephone his family to relay ransom demands. He was released after his family paid the sum demanded.
AAM reached the UK by small boat on 16 May 2022 and claimed asylum. His case was referred to the National Referral Mechanism, the Home Office process for identifying potential victims of modern slavery. The department decided there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he was a victim because he had not been required to perform work or provide services to his captors.
The High Court quashed that decision and the Home Office appealed. The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal.
Legal reasoning
Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Lewis said Article 4 of the Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention sets a minimum which states are free to exceed. He held that, on a natural reading of regulation 3(6)(d)(iii) of the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022, a kidnapped person subjected to force or threats to enable a captor to obtain a benefit may be regarded as having been exploited.
The Home Office had argued that kidnap for ransom fell outside the forms of exploitation the UK is obliged to recognise under the Council of Europe convention and the Palermo Protocol. The Court disagreed and concluded the statutory definition could encompass situations in which captors use force or threats to secure a financial benefit through ransom demands.
The court’s order quashed the Home Office’s original conclusion and remitted the matter to the Secretary of State for a fresh decision under the National Referral Mechanism process.
Legal teams and reaction
Samantha Knights KC acted for AAM, instructed by the firm Duncan Lewis. Solicitor Jeremy Bloom described the judgment as a vindication of his client’s claim.
Home Office sources said the department would not comment on legal proceedings. A Home Office spokesperson said the department was simplifying and strengthening protection and immigration routes.
The judgment establishes a legal principle rather than granting conclusive status to any individual. Each trafficking claim must still be decided on its particular facts, and AAM’s own case has been remitted for reconsideration rather than being finally decided in his favour.
The judgment may have wider consequences for people who were held for ransom overseas and whose earlier claims were rejected on similar grounds. It is possible that some individuals previously refused a trafficking finding could seek fresh referrals into the National Referral Mechanism, although any estimate of how many might benefit is a projection and not an official figure.
What happens next
Following the Court of Appeal ruling, the Secretary of State must reconsider AAM’s referral in line with the court’s legal guidance on the interpretation of the trafficking regulations. The outcome of that fresh determination will depend on the evidence relating to exploitation in his particular case.
The decision will be cited in future litigation and may be relied upon by other appellants who argue that being kidnapped and held for ransom amounted to exploitation for the purposes of the trafficking definition. It clarifies that the statutory framework can, in appropriate cases, recognise ransom kidnapping as a form of exploitation, but it does not automatically convert such cases into recognised trafficking victims without case specific findings.
