Legal Information

The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.

16 February 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

4 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Cyprus - Viet Nam

On appeal from [2013] EWCA Civ 616 (see "Related document").

25 March 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Statelessness - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

25 March 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

17 July 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Viet Nam

30 April 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic - Viet Nam

11 July 2013 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesgerichtshof | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Germany - Viet Nam

18 June 2013 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

24 May 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Denial of nationality - Multiple nationality - Proof of nationality - Right to a nationality - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam