The Court of Appeal has ruled that kidnapping for ransom may fall within the legal definition of exploitation for human trafficking, provided the circumstances satisfy the statutory requirements. The decision clarifies the scope of the 2022 Regulations and confirms that exploitation is not necessarily limited to forced labour or services.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
In AAM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1411, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against a High Court decision concerning the refusal to recognise AAM as a potential victim of human trafficking.
The central issue was whether kidnapping for the purpose of extracting ransom payments could constitute exploitation under Regulation 3(6)(d)(iii) of the Modern Slavery Act 2022 (Meaning of Victim of Slavery or Human Trafficking) Regulations 2022.
The court concluded that it could. Where a person is kidnapped and subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce them to enable another person to obtain benefits, including ransom money, the statutory definition may be satisfied.
The appeal was dismissed. The court agreed that the Secretary of State had failed to consider whether the circumstances of AAM’s kidnapping involved the arrangement or facilitation of travel with a view to exploitation.
What happened to AAM in Libya?
AAM, a Syrian national, left Syria in 2022 and travelled to Libya. During his journey from Benghazi towards Tripoli, he and other Syrian men were intercepted by armed individuals and taken captive.
According to the account set out in the judgment, the captives were detained and their families were contacted to demand ransom payments. AAM described being threatened and subjected to violence while his captors sought money from his family.
He was required to communicate with his family about the ransom demand. The evidence considered by the courts included allegations that he was beaten while other captives spoke to their relatives, so that his cries could be heard and used to encourage payment.
After approximately four weeks, AAM and the other captives were released following payment of ransom money. AAM subsequently travelled onwards through Europe and arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat in May 2022, where he claimed asylum.
His case was referred to the National Referral Mechanism, the process used to identify potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. However, the Secretary of State initially concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that he had been trafficked.
- AAM travelled from Syria to Libya.
- He was kidnapped during his journey towards Tripoli and held for ransom.
- AAM arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat.
- His case was referred to the National Referral Mechanism.
- The Secretary of State again decided that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect trafficking.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.
What is the legal test for human trafficking?
Regulation 3 of the 2022 Regulations defines a victim of human trafficking through a combination of three connected elements: the arrangement or facilitation of travel, the methods used, and the purpose of exploitation.
| Element | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Action | A person’s travel is arranged or facilitated by another person. This may include recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receiving. |
| Means | The arrangements involve methods such as threats, force, coercion, abduction, kidnapping, false imprisonment, fraud or abuse of vulnerability. |
| Purpose | The travel is arranged or facilitated with a view to the person being exploited in one of the ways recognised by Regulation 3(6). |
The relevant provision in this appeal was Regulation 3(6)(d)(iii). It includes circumstances in which a person is subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce them to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
The Court of Appeal considered the ordinary meaning of these words and held that they were capable of covering ransom-related conduct. A kidnapped person may be threatened or forced to contact relatives and persuade them to pay money, thereby enabling the captor to obtain a financial benefit.
Kidnapping for ransom may, depending on the facts, amount to exploitation within the meaning of the Regulations.
— Court of Appeal, AAM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1411
Why did the Home Secretary’s appeal fail?
The Secretary of State argued that the definition of exploitation should be interpreted in line with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, particularly the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT).
The Home Secretary’s position was that kidnapping for ransom was not expressly included among the forms of exploitation identified in Article 4 of ECAT. It was also argued that the ransom payment resulted from the fact of captivity itself, rather than from any action by the kidnapped person.
AAM’s legal representatives argued that the international provisions established minimum standards and did not prevent domestic legislation from recognising additional forms of exploitation.
The Court of Appeal agreed with AAM’s interpretation. It explained that Article 4 of ECAT sets out minimum forms of exploitation that contracting states must recognise, but does not prevent states from extending their domestic definitions.
The court also considered the wording of Regulation 3(6)(d)(iii). It found that a person who is kidnapped may be subjected to threats or force intended to make them contact their family and secure ransom payments. In those circumstances, the person may be enabling the kidnapper to acquire a financial benefit.
The court therefore concluded that the High Court judge had been correct to find that the Secretary of State adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the Regulations. The original decision had focused on whether AAM was subjected to forced labour, without properly considering whether the kidnapping and ransom demands themselves involved exploitation.
What does the judgment mean for trafficking claims?
The judgment provides important clarification for the interpretation of the statutory definition of human trafficking in the context of the National Referral Mechanism.
It confirms that exploitation under the 2022 Regulations is not necessarily confined to traditional forms of forced labour, sexual exploitation or services. Conduct involving threats or force intended to secure financial benefits for another person may also fall within the definition.
For legal practitioners representing potential victims, the decision highlights the importance of examining the full circumstances surrounding a person’s journey, including kidnapping, detention, coercion and demands for payment.
For decision-makers, the judgment emphasises that each element of the statutory definition must be considered properly. A decision should not focus exclusively on whether a person was forced to work or provide services if other forms of exploitation may be relevant.
However, the Court of Appeal did not establish that every kidnapping for ransom automatically constitutes human trafficking. The statutory requirement that travel must have been arranged or facilitated with a view to exploitation remains central. Whether that requirement is satisfied will depend on the evidence and circumstances of the individual case.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that the Secretary of State must reconsider AAM’s case lawfully.
Frequently asked questions
Can kidnapping for ransom constitute human trafficking?
Yes. The Court of Appeal confirmed that kidnapping for ransom may constitute exploitation under Regulation 3(6)(d)(iii) of the 2022 Regulations, depending on the facts of the case.
What is Regulation 3(6)(d)(iii)?
It covers situations where a person is subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce them to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
Did the Court of Appeal declare AAM a victim of human trafficking?
No. The court dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal and upheld the conclusion that the original decision was unlawful. The Secretary of State was required to make a lawful decision on whether AAM was a victim of trafficking.
Does the judgment mean every kidnapping for ransom is human trafficking?
No. The court made clear that the issue is fact-specific. The requirements concerning the arrangement or facilitation of travel and the purpose of exploitation must still be satisfied.
What is the National Referral Mechanism?
The National Referral Mechanism is the framework used in the United Kingdom to identify potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking and assess their eligibility for support.
What was the outcome of the appeal?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal. Lord Justice Edis and Lord Justice Bean agreed with the leading judgment.