The court of appeal has rejected a Home Office argument that being kidnapped for ransom does not constitute exploitation of trafficking victims, in a ruling that could open the door to support for thousands of asylum seekers.

The judgment means that many people who were kidnapped for ransom, and whom officials had previously excluded from being treated as victims of exploitation under trafficking rules, must now have those claims considered. They may be eligible for the support and recovery package to which trafficking victims are entitled.

Kidnapping for ransom is a common hazard for asylum seekers passing through Libya on the journey to Europe. Many are fleeing conflict in countries such as Sudan and Eritrea, as well as some in the Middle East.

The legal challenge was brought by a Syrian asylum seeker who cannot be identified. The 25-year-old fled forced military conscription in July 2021, knowing he was likely to be imprisoned and tortured in Syria for refusing to fight. He travelled to Libya, ultimately hoping to reach the UK, where he and other Syrians were abducted by armed men and held in captivity for a month between August and September 2021.

His money and phone were seized, and the captives were driven through the desert for 24 hours, hearing gunshots, with no food and little water. They were told they would not be released until their families agreed to pay a ransom of several thousand dollars. The man was tied up and often beaten on his hands and feet. The captives were forced to phone their families to beg for the money, and the kidnappers beat them during the calls so their relatives could hear the screams. He was terrified that even if his family paid, he might not be released and that his organs might be harvested.

He was freed after his family paid, and made his way to Europe, crossing the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy by boat before crossing the Channel from France to the UK on 16 May 2022, where he claimed asylum. The Home Office rejected his trafficking claim, arguing that because he had not been subjected to forced labour by his kidnappers, his experience did not meet the definition of exploitation in the trafficking rules. The high court ruled in his favour, but the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, appealed against that decision.

While the government has pledged to support trafficking victims, the policy of excluding asylum seekers kidnapped for ransom in Libya has denied many the support the judges ruled they may be entitled to. Recent freedom of information data on asylum seekers confirmed to be genuine trafficking victims found that of the 1,778 confirmed victims between July 2024 and July 2025, 89% were forcibly removed from the UK, putting them at risk of being trafficked again.

Although each trafficking claim must be considered on the facts of the individual case, the judgment found: 'The secretary of state erred in not considering the question of whether kidnapping amounted to exploitation.' The ruling could help thousands of potential trafficking victims, including people previously refused who were kidnapped and held to ransom in Libya. They can now obtain a fresh referral into the national referral mechanism for a new decision on whether there are reasonable grounds for them to be considered a victim of trafficking.

Jeremy Bloom, a consultant solicitor at Duncan Lewis who represented the Syrian man, welcomed the ruling. 'This judgment is a vindication of my client's claim to be a victim of trafficking. The Home Office sought to restrict the definition of exploitation,' he said. He added that he hoped it would also help other victims who had experienced similarly horrendous treatment to gain access to the leave and support they need to recover, including people whose claims were refused and who might now ask for a new decision based on the law set out in the judgment.

Home Office sources said it would not be appropriate to comment on legal proceedings. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We are simplifying and strengthening protection and immigration routes, ensuring they are clear, targeted and focused on their intended purpose, while maintaining fairness and public confidence.'