Guidance

Decision making guidance for pilot sites in Scotland

Updated 5 December 2023

1.1. Please note this Annex applies for all Pilot Sites in Scotland. Separate guidance applies in England and Wales.

1.2. This Annex provides detailed guidance for decision makers in the Devolving Decision-Making Pilot. In the main, this guidance replaces Annex E of the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland for the purpose of making decisions within the Pilot. However, Pilot sites should refer to Chapter 7 and Annex E (Making a reasonable grounds decision; Making a Conclusive Grounds decision) in the Modern slavery: statutory guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland for guidance on how to make a Reasonable and or Conclusive Grounds decision.

1.3. Definitions of different forms of trafficking offences (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour) will remain as contained in the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 and further referred to within the Inter Agency Guidance Trafficking and Exploitation 2019 (Glasgow Child Protection Committee).

Defined terms

1.4. In this guidance the following defined terms are used in addition to the defined terms set out in the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

• Devolving Child Decision Making Pilot (the ‘Pilot’) refers to the twenty pilot sites taking decisions regarding potential child victims of modern slavery as defined in this document. This next phase of the Pilot is due to run until March 2024.
• Pilot Site refers to Glasgow Child Protection Committee partners.
• Child refers to child or young person under the age of 18yrs.
• National Child Protection Guidance refers to National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2014.
• Initial Referral Discussion (IRD) is a child protection meeting convened under national and local child protection guidance in Scotland. This multi-agency meeting determines the need for any child protection or child welfare measures.
• Young Person’s Support and Protection (YPSP) conference is a child protection meeting convened under the Young Person Support and Protection procedures where the child’s plan is developed and implemented.
• Human trafficking and exploitation will be referred to rather than terminology ‘modern slavery’ in line with Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015.
• GIRFEC refers to Getting it right for every child which is a national approach to ensure consistent planning and to take appropriate action to support children, young people and their families in Scotland GIRFEC National Practice Model.

Overarching policy and procedures

1.5. The following are the overarching policies and procedures the Pilot Programme will work within to offer a robust assessment of the child or young person’s circumstances: * National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2014 (Scottish Government) National Child Protection Guidance in Scotland 2014 * Interagency Guidance Child Trafficking & Exploitation 2019, (Glasgow Child Protection Committee) Child Trafficking & Exploitation Inter Agency Guidance * Getting it Right for every child (GIRFEC) GIRFEC National Practice Model * National Risk Framework to support the assessment of children and young people 2012 National Risk Framework

Assessing reliability, credibility and other evidence during the decision-making process

1.6. Pilot Sites need to assess whether a potential victim’s account of human trafficking and exploitation is credible when making a Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds decision.

1.7. Good practice in working with victims who have experienced trauma should be observed. See the Interagency Guidance Child Trafficking and Exploitation 2019 for more information on trauma informed practice. However, the need to take into account the impact trauma is likely to have on the individual’s ability to recall events does not remove the need to assess all information critically and objectively when considering the credibility of a case.

Assessing credibility

1.8. Pilot Sites are entitled to consider credibility as part of their decision-making process at both the Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds stages. When Pilot Sites are assessing the credibility of an account, they must consider both the external and internal credibility of the material facts.

1.9. If they fit the definition of human trafficking or slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour, there is reliable supporting evidence and the account is credible to the required standard of proof, the Pilot Site should recognise the person as being a victim of trafficking.

1.10. It is important for the Pilot Site to assess all information critically and objectively when the Pilot Site considers the credibility of a case. As part of that consideration it is vital for decision makers to have an understanding of the mitigating reasons why a potential victim of trafficking is incoherent, inconsistent or delays giving details of material facts.

1.11. Throughout this process it is important to remember that victims of trafficking have been through trauma, and that this may impact on the information they provide. Due to trauma there may be valid reasons why a potential victim’s account is inconsistent or lacks sufficient detail. The Pilot Site should have account of any relevant factors set out in the Glasgow Child Trafficking and Exploitation guidance section which outlines some of the challenge’s victims may face in providing a clear and consistent account of their experiences. The Pilot Site should take these reasons into account when considering the credibility of a claim.

1.12. The Pilot Site must consider the child’s:

• added vulnerability
• developmental stage
• possible grooming by the traffickers and exploiters

Materiality

1.13. In assessing credibility, the Pilot Site should assess the material facts of past and present events (material facts being those which are serious and significant in nature) which may indicate that a person is a victim of trafficking. It is generally unnecessary, and sometimes counter productive, to focus on minor or peripheral facts that are not material to the claim.

1.14. The Pilot Site should assess the material facts based on the following:

• are they coherent and consistent with any past written or verbal statements?
• how well does the evidence submitted fit together and does it contradict itself?
• are they consistent with claims made by witnesses and with any documentary evidence submitted in support of the claim or gathered during the course of your investigations?

1.15. Where there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that the child is a victim of trafficking (for example where the case is lacking key details, such as who exploited them or where the exploitation took place) staff at the Pilot Site are entitled to question whether the Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds threshold is met. However, if the Reasonable Grounds threshold is met Pilot Sites must also consider whether they are able to make a positive Conclusive Grounds decision on the evidence they have available, or if they need more information before making a Conclusive Grounds decision.

Level of detail

1.16. The level of detail with which a potential victim presents their claim is a factor when the Pilot Site assesses credibility. It is reasonable to assume that a victim giving an account of their human trafficking and exploitation experience will be more expressive and more likely to include sensory details (for example what they saw, heard, felt or thought about an event) than someone who has not had this experience. However, some traumatised individuals can struggle to verbally express distressing experiences, may appear numb or disconnected from their words or display other trauma-related responses.

1.17. Where there is insufficient evidence to support that the individual is a victim of trafficking the Pilot Site is entitled to question whether the Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds threshold is met.

Consistency

1.18. It is also reasonable to assume that a potential victim who has experienced an event will be able to recount the central elements in a broadly consistent manner. A potential victim’s inability to remain consistent throughout their written and oral accounts of past and current events may lead the Pilot Site to disbelieve their claim. However, before the Pilot Site comes to a negative conclusion, they must first refer back to the First Responder, support provider, other expert witnesses, or the potential victim themselves to clarify any inconsistencies in the claim.

1.19. Due to the trauma of human trafficking and exploitation there may be valid reasons why a potential victim’s account is inconsistent or lacks sufficient detail. The Pilot Site should take account of any evidence of mitigating circumstances that could explain the inconsistency.

Considering gender and culture

1.20. Pilot Sites need to know how to consider gender and cultural issues in considering credibility.

1.21. It is important to understand that distress presents differently in different cultures and that cultural understanding of many situations is variable.

1.22. When making Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds decisions the Pilot Site must take into account the individual position and personal circumstances of the person and consider cultural or gender issues.

1.23. Individuals from the same country of origin may have different experiences due to their cultural, ethnic, gender and sexual identity. For example, women may be unable to disclose relevant details due to cultural and social norms.

Assessment of trafficking and exploitation

1.24. In identifying human trafficking and exploitation, a multi-agency assessment will be undertaken by the Pilot Site at the Reasonable and Conclusive Grounds stages, having regard to all information in line with the procedures and guidance set out above. This could include information presented by a child or young person. Any engagement with a child or young person will be undertaken using a trauma informed approach and any assessment will have regard to the impact of trauma as set out in Section 4 of the 2019 inter agency guidance (trauma informed support and intervention).

1.25. The Pilot Site will follow the GIRFEC principles. GIRFEC is Scotland’s national framework that supports the wellbeing and safety of children through a holistic assessment of the child’s needs.

Relevance of potential prosecution of perpetrators

1.26. The Pilot Site needs to have an awareness of how prosecution of perpetrators could impact on a victim of trafficking’s Reasonable and Conclusive Grounds decisions.

1.27. When the Pilot Site is deciding whether there are Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds that a person is a victim of trafficking, their decision may be influenced by whether the alleged exploiter is being prosecuted. The Pilot Site decision is not dependent on:

• There being a criminal investigation
• Whether the child or young person cooperates with a criminal investigation

1.28. The victim identification process is independent of any criminal proceedings against those responsible for the human trafficking and exploitation. The criminal standard of proof that “beyond reasonable doubt” is higher than that of the Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds test.

1.29. The Pilot Site must be aware that any information recorded as part of a Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds decision could be disclosed during a prosecution or a Subject Access Request.

Views of professionals during pilot decision making

1.30. Police, Social Work and Health are the only decision makers in both Reasonable and Conclusive Grounds decisions. Please refer to ‘Appropriate attendees on NRM panels’ in Devolving child decision making pilot programme: general guidance for more details on voting decision makers and advisory only panel members.

1.31. A Reasonable Grounds decision may be taken at the Initial Referral Discussion (IRD). Where the Reasonable Grounds decision is positive, but the Pilot Site does not believe it can take a positive Conclusive Grounds decision at the same time, for example, due to insufficient evidence, the Pilot Site will schedule a second meeting (Young Person’s Support and Protection Case Conference) to take the Conclusive Grounds decision within 45 calendar days of the initial meeting.

1.32. If a second meeting is required, Pilot Site decision makers should consider what evidence will be necessary to enable them to take the Conclusive Grounds decision at the second meeting and ensure every effort is made to obtain that evidence. Where the Pilot Site is aware that further relevant information will be available at a later date e.g. a medical assessment or police report, the site should ensure that information is obtained for the second meeting.

1.33. The Conclusive Grounds decision will be taken in consultation with all professionals involved in the support and care of the child/ young person present at the YPSPCC.

1.34. The Young Person Support & Protection (YPSP) conference will include, the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian, in cases involving children where this provision is available, who will be a full participant in the meeting. The Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland provide specialist independent support through a guardian to children and young people who are or may have been trafficked, or at risk of trafficking, for whom no-one in the UK holds parental rights or responsibilities. The guardian helps these children and young people to navigate the immigration and welfare processes. Where appropriate the guardian will attend a Young Person Support & Protection (YPSP) conference and be a full participant in the meeting to share information, but given they are not a statutory service they must not participate in the final decision-making.

Weight to give to expert reports

1.35. Potential victims of trafficking may rely on documentary evidence to support their claim in the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

1.36. The experience and qualifications of the individual providing the supporting evidence and the sources used will be relevant in considering what weight to attach to an expert report and every case must be considered on its merits.

1.37. Expert evidence is not determinative of whether the Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds test is met but should be taken into account when reaching a conclusion on whether there are reasons why the Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds test is or is not met. There is no requirement to accept an assessment of an expert that a person is or is not a victim. Any expert assessment should be considered in the round with all other information.

1.38. The individual writing the report may not have access to the full range of information available to the Pilot Site and all relevant evidence, including any documentary evidence, must be considered when making a Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds decision.

1.39. Where an expert report is considered when assessing a claim under the NRM, and other information is available, all the information and relevant reports should be considered. If there are several expert reports all must be taken into account. A decision should not rely on an expert report alone without considering all relevant information.

1.40. A decision should not rely on an expert report alone where there is other relevant information available. The Pilot Site should consider all available evidence, and an expert report should be considered and weighted appropriately alongside other evidence.

1.41. Where a potential victim relies on medical evidence, it should be from a medical or health professional who is qualified in the appropriate field, including information such as the relevant physical or mental condition, when that condition has been diagnosed, and why that condition or any treatment relating to it is relevant to human trafficking and exploitation.

1.42. The Pilot Site will not make a determination on a potential victim’s nationality. The purpose of the NRM is to identify and support victims of trafficking. However, the Pilot Site will consider evidence from a range of sources to enable a holistic assessment of a potential victim’s case which may include consideration of the potential victim’s claimed nationality for the purposes of their case and the claims they are a victim.

1.43. Any evidence supplied must be capable of being verified by the Pilot Site where appropriate.

Insufficient evidence

1.44. Where there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that the individual is a victim of trafficking, Pilot Sites are entitled to question whether the Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds threshold is met.

1.45. Decision makers at Pilot Sites should consider what information they hold that may be relevant to a decision and ensure that is shared with other decision-makers at a multi-agency meeting to ensure all relevant information is considered.

Assessing victims who were exploited overseas or historic claims

1.46. While a victim must be physically in the UK in order to enter the NRM, the fact that a victim has been exploited outside of the UK does not preclude the Pilot Site from making a decision.

1.47. A child who says they have been a victim of trafficking overseas should be assessed on the same basis as a child who states they have been a victim of trafficking in the UK. Although they may be far removed from their situation of trafficking, they may still have been subjected to exploitation and may therefore be considered a victim of trafficking. They may also still be traumatised by their experience even in historic cases.

1.48. Similarly, a child may have been exploited some time ago and the situation of exploitation is now over. These scenarios are often referred to as historic claims as they might be referred to the NRM long after the exploitation has ended. The Pilot Site should still make a decision on whether the person is a victim of trafficking if the case is referred in to the NRM and in scope of the pilot, as the NRM decisions are not an assessment of future harm but a retrospective finding of fact as to whether the individual is a victim of trafficking. It is worth noting that the YPSP conference will also consider future risk of harm.

1.49. The Pilot Site must offer potential victims of historic claims the same support and protection extended to victims of trafficking while their case is considered within the NRM.

How a referral is made

1.50. Human trafficking and exploitation is a child protection issue and child protection procedures will take precedence in any referral in line with National Child Protection Guidance.

1.51. Where a potential victim of trafficking is identified, Social Work services will notify SCA and contact Police Scotland and Health Services to arrange an IRD. The SCA will also be notified of the outcome of the IRD which could be:

• No further action required in relation to trafficking
• Reasonable Grounds decision

1.52. Where Police Scotland are the referring agency, they will submit a referral to Social Work Services and any safety planning under child protection procedures will be agreed. Police Scotland will at the same time notify the SCA and the National Human Trafficking Unit.

1.53. Where Police Scotland is the First Responder, the referral will detail if the child is potentially subject to criminal proceedings and any timescale in which a Conclusive Grounds Decision is required for the criminal justice system.

1.54. When a First Responder believes a child is a potential victim of trafficking, they will submit a referral to the SCA, who will log the referral. This referral will be shared with the Pilot Site as appropriate.

Validating and acknowledging a referral

1.55. Staff at the SCA will validate an NRM referral. The process SCA staff will follow is:

• Check whether the referral is a duplicate or refers to an existing case

• Check there is sufficient information contained in the referral. If not, the SCA staff will swiftly contact the First Responder Organisation for more information and any other agencies involved with details supplied as part of the referral.

• If the potential victim has any immigration history on the Home Office Case Information Database (CID), check that they have been identified as having a ‘Potential Victim of Trafficking’ special condition. If not, the SCA will add this to the record and raise a barrier to removal if this is not already in place.

• Check whether the referral is eligible to be part of the Pilot Programme; whether the safeguarding responsibility for the child falls to one of the local authorities involved in the Pilot Programme, whether the child is more than 100 days from their 18th birthday or where there is doubt as to whether the individual is a child.

In addition to referring the case to the Pilot Site; the SCA will acknowledge it has received the referral form by sending an acknowledgement notification to:

• The First Responder
• Police Scotland
• Social Worker. If there is no social worker listed on the referral form in a case involving a potential child victim, the SCA will contact the relevant local authority
• Police Scotland’s National Human Trafficking Unit
• Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland in cases involving children where this provision is available and the SCA has been notified of their involvement. The SCA will ensure all relevant updates on SCA databases are made.

Making a decision

1.56. This section sets out the process the Pilot Site will follow when making a Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decision.

1.57. The Pilot Site needs to assess if all information available meets the definition of human trafficking and exploitation when making a Reasonable or Conclusive Grounds decision. When undertaking an assessment, the Pilot Site will consider all the information available to support decision making objectively. Analysis of the information and evidence available to the Pilot Site in its assessment will inform a decision that a child is a potential victim of trafficking.

1.58. In carrying out the assessment, the Pilot Site will recognise that victims of trafficking have been through trauma which may impact on the information they provide. The Pilot Site will take cognisance of inconsistent accounts within the context of trauma informed practice.

Timescale for decisions

1.59. The Pilot Site will convene an IRD on receipt of referral where Social Work, Police Scotland, NHS (and Education where appropriate and in line with IRD Guidance) will undertake the Reasonable Grounds Decision.

1.60. Where there is sufficient information, the IRD may also make a positive Conclusive Grounds decision at the same time the Reasonable Grounds decision is taken.

1.61. Where the Reasonable Grounds decision is positive, but the IRD does not have sufficient information to make a positive Conclusive grounds decision, the IRD will recommend that a YPSP Conference is arranged to consider the Conclusive Grounds decision within 45 calendar days of the IRD.

1.62. Where there is sufficient evidence to support a decision, the Pilot Site will inform the SCA of the decision. The SCA will then advise all relevant parties. Where there is not sufficient evidence to take a decision, conference participants should agree what further evidence is required and the steps needed to obtain it.

1.63. If the child is subject to criminal proceedings, the Pilot Site should consider the child’s case as a matter of urgency and, where possible, in line with the timescales of the Criminal Justice System. The Pilot Site will inform the SCA as soon as the decision is made. The SCA will inform all interested parties. However, a decision should still only be made where there is sufficient information available to do so.

1.64. The Pilot Site may receive a request to delay making a Conclusive Grounds decision; for example, until an interested party can submit further information deemed relevant to a case. The Pilot Site should consider the circumstances of the request, whether the additional information is required for the decision, and as such whether it is appropriate to wait rather than proceeding with a decision. If the child is subject to potential criminal proceedings, then the timescales of the criminal justice system should form part of the consideration of the request to delay. The Pilot Site must discuss the request with the SCA, who must inform the victim of the outcome of the request to delay and provide reasons if the request is refused.

Making reasonable and conclusive grounds decision

1.65. Pilot sites should refer to Chapter 7 and Annex E (Making a reasonable grounds decision; Making a conclusive grounds decision) in the Modern Slavery: statutory guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland for guidance on how to make a Reasonable and Conclusive Grounds decision.

1.66. If the Pilot Site has sufficient evidence to make a positive Conclusive Grounds decision at the same time it makes a positive Reasonable Grounds decision it should do so immediately. The child will continue to receive a 90-calendar day Recovery Period from the date of the Reasonable Grounds decision. See the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland for more information on the Recovery Period.

1.67. The pilot will follow the GIRFEC principles and framework to ensure a holistic assessment of the child or young person

Recording a decision

1.68. As part of the decision-making process, Pilot Sites will complete the reporting template and return this with panel minutes and with any evidence relied upon to reach the decision, to the SCA. This should be done for both Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds decisions. Where both decisions are taken in the same meeting, only one template is required. Where appropriate, the Pilot Site should specify where information is not disclosable within the template.

1.69. The YPSP conference decisions will be contained in the 24hr decision letter (which is the framework of the child’s plan compiled at the end of a conference). The 24hr decision letter will not include any Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decisions as these will be issued by the SCA. The child’s plan will include any interventions and actions required to meet the safety and wellbeing needs of the child. The YPSP will make Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds NRM decisions and these will be made as part of the Pilot Programme, recognising that the ability to make NRM decisions is not a current delegated function.

1.70. The SCA will record the outcome of the decision on appropriate Home Office databases and issue any required decision letters or other communications.

Actions for the Single Competent Authority following a National Referral Mechanism decision (Reasonable and/or Conclusive Grounds)

1.71. For the duration of the Pilot Programme, the SCA will carry out any necessary quality assurance processes.

1.72. This section sets out the action the SCA will need to take following a Reasonable Grounds and/or Conclusive Grounds decision. In all NRM cases, when a decision is made, the SCA must take the following actions:

Action 1: Record the decision

1.73. The SCA must update the SCA records when any of the following occurs:

• Positive or Negative Reasonable Grounds decision made
• Positive Reasonable Grounds and positive Conclusive Grounds decision made
• Positive or Negative Conclusive Grounds decision made
• a reconsideration is requested
• a decision is suspended or withdrawn

1.74. In all cases the SCA will record the outcome of the Pilot Site’s decisions and the evidence relied upon using the reporting template and panel minutes.

1.75. The SCA should complete the appropriate decision letter for the case outcome.

1.76. For a negative decision, the SCA must include a copy of their consideration minute providing full details of what they have considered, where they believe there are gaps in information and explaining their decision.

1.77. Any decision letter from the SCA should be issued to the allocated social worker who will share with the relevant parties including the child/ young person and the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland in cases involving children where this provision is available.

1.78. The SCA must not serve a decision letter or other trafficking papers on a child under any circumstances. All trafficking papers must be served on the child’s appointed representative or the local authority, as well as, the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland in cases involving children where this provision is available.

Action 2: Notify other relevant agencies of the decision

1.79. The SCA must notify the following of their decision:

• the First Responder and / or First Responder Organisation (in all cases)
• Social Work Services
• the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland in cases involving children where this provision is available.

1.80. The SCA should update the Home Office databases as appropriate (e.g. NRM Referral case type, special condition, removal barrier) noting that the minimum 30-day Recovery Period must be observed.

1.81. The SCA should update Police Scotland following a Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decision. For more information see Information sharing between the SCA and the police.

Action 3: Notify law enforcement (where criminal proceedings are involved)

1.82. If the individual is the subject of criminal proceedings the SCA must contact Police Scotland as soon as the NRM decision is made.

1.83. The SCA must ensure that Police Scotland’s National Human Trafficking Unit is notified of the NRM decision as soon as they make it. This is done by sending a copy of the notification letter or contacting them by email or telephone as appropriate. The National Human Trafficking Unit will update G Division Trafficking Unit.

1.84. The Police Scotland will notify the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland of the NRM decision as soon as they receive it.

1.85. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will apply the Lord Advocate’s Instructions to prosecutors when considering prosecution of victims of trafficking to ensure that child victims of trafficking who may have committed criminal offences, as a consequence of their exploitation, are not prosecuted. Further information can be found in Section 8 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 and Lord Advocate’s Instructions for Prosecutors when considering Prosecution of Victims of Human Trafficking and Exploitation

Actions for the Single Competent Authority when a National Referral Mechanism decision is suspended

1.86. Actions for the SCA in a suspended case will continue as set out in the original Annex E of the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland

1.87. The SCA and Pilot Site will agree an appropriate course of action on a case-by-case basis if they believe a case may need to be suspended. If any of the following occur, a Pilot Site will be expected to notify the SCA as soon as reasonably possible:

• the child dies, goes missing, or is arrested
• there is a change in the local authority responsible for the child
• the child is likely to turn 18 before a Conclusive Grounds decision can be made
• there is a criminal trial date set ahead of the expected decision date

1.88. The Pilot Site will notify the SCA if they become aware of any other reason why a decision may need to be suspended.

Actions for the Single Competent Authority in live immigration cases following a National Referral Mechanism decision

1.89. Actions for the SCA in relation to immigration cases will continue as set out in the original Annex E of the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Single Competent Authority case record

1.90. An SCA case record must be kept by SCA staff.

1.91. When human trafficking and exploitation cases are concluded, all SCA case records must, at a minimum, contain:

• first Responder referral form
• decision letter(s)
• decision Templates from Pilot Sites and accompanying evidence
• details of referrals to other relevant organisations, e.g. police / Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service in Scotland

Disclosure of information to the victim and right of access requests

1.92. Pilot Sites will be data processors for the purpose of NRM data. As such, if a right of access request is raised with a Pilot Site, the SCA as data controller should be notified.

1.93. The outcome of Reasonable Grounds and Conclusive Grounds decisions will always be disclosed to victims (or an appropriate representative for the child) as a matter of course.

1.94. Victims can request access to the information held about them by the SCA, as data controller, in accordance with Article 15 of the GDPR. Requests for information should be submitted in writing. Templates to assist with requesting this information are available from the Information Commissioner’s Office here.

Section 15 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2015 allows for exemptions from right of access requests as set out in Schedule 2 of the DPA 2015. These exemptions include for 2(1)(a) the prevention of a crime, and 2(1)(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. As such, where there is sensitive information in the referral form or decision minute, this should be redacted before the records are released. Examples of sensitive information that may not be released, include:

• Information about police or other law enforcement investigations
• Information regarding other victims

Tribunal requests

1.95. Actions for the SCA in relation to Tribunal Requests cases will continue as set out in the original Annex E of the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Reconsideration of Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decision

1.96. An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may request reconsideration of a negative Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decision if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case, or there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with guidance.

1.97. If the Pilot Site receives a request for a reconsideration, the SCA should be informed as soon as reasonably possible. The SCA will inform the relevant Pilot if the SCA receives a request for a reconsideration relating to a decision a Pilot Site has made.

1.98. The SCA and Pilot Site will discuss the merits of the reconsideration request, but the SCA will have the final decision as to whether the case should be reconsidered.

1.99. If the SCA determines a case should be reconsidered, the SCA will determine whether the Pilot Site or the SCA is best placed to reconsider the decision.

1.100. Full details on reconsideration request are set out in the original Annex E.

Public order disqualification

1.101. Pilot sites should refer to Annex E- Public Order Disqualification in the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland (publishing.service.gov.uk) for guidance on Public Order Disqualification decisions.

In cases of a possible POD, the pilot site will not make a POD decision, and the case will be transferred back to the SCA. In the instance of where a Public Order Disqualification was considered for a child, but it has been determined that the disqualification will not apply, the case may be transferred from the SCA to the appropriate pilot site.

Revocation of Conclusive Grounds decision

1.102. Where the SCA or a Pilot Site has made a positive Conclusive Grounds decision, but information later comes to light which suggests that the decision was flawed, the SCA should consider whether revocation is appropriate.

1.103. Where the decision has been made by a Pilot Site, the SCA will discuss their concerns with the Pilot Site who made the decision to determine whether a revocation is appropriate. It will be for the SCA to make the final determination, but this will not happen before concerns have been discussed with the Pilot Site.

1.104. If it is determined that it is appropriate to revoke the Conclusive Grounds decision, the SCA caseworker must write to the individual concerned, or an appropriate representative. If it is not possible to make contact directly with the individual concerned in an appropriate way, the SCA should contact their legal representative (where known) and/or their most recent support provider under the Victim Care Contract (where engaged), or equivalent support providers in Northern Ireland and Scotland, to seek to regain contact.

1.105. If the individual has been issued Temporary Permission to stay as a Victim of Human Trafficking or Slavery , the SCA must notify the appropriate immigration team for them to consider whether curtailment of this leave is appropriate.

Withdrawing from the National Referral Mechanism

1.106. Children may not withdraw themselves from the NRM. A child may not be withdrawn from the NRM unless it is in the best interests of the child as determined by the responsible local authority Child Safeguarding Services. If the SCA receives a request from a local authority or embassy, for example, seeking that a child be withdrawn from the NRM, the case should be referred to the Modern Slavery Unit for advice.