Clause 36 of Immigration and Asylum Bill Targets Trafficking Victims

By Priya Raman

Clause 36 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill would change how officials assess the credibility of possible victims of trafficking. The government intends to make certain behaviours count against victims by default. Late disclosure is one of them.

Under the proposal, matters such as a late disclosure, material inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or a failure to provide information should be regarded as damaging to credibility. This applies unless there are good reasons to treat them otherwise.

The takeaways for practitioners are direct. These are the exact behaviours trauma produces.

What does clause 36 change?

The current system does not automatically treat delayed or inconsistent accounts as evidence against a victim. Clause 36 would reverse that starting assumption.

The listed factors would include:

• late disclosure of trafficking experiences
• material inaccuracies in an account
• inconsistencies within or between statements
• failure to provide information

Each factor would damage credibility unless an exception applies. The burden effectively shifts. Practitioners would need to anticipate and document explanations up front rather than respond later.

In short, the default position flips from neutral to adverse.

Who is affected?

The rules apply to possible victims of trafficking. That wording matters. It covers people at the identification stage, before any conclusive finding.

Campaigners frame the problem bluntly: the proposed trafficking credibility rules risk punishing victims for being victims. A person who discloses abuse months after it happened, or whose account shifts on retelling, would face a credibility penalty under the clause.

Those are recognised patterns in trauma cases, not signs of fabrication. Practitioners working with survivors should expect to build the justification file earlier in the process.

What should advisers do now?

The change is not yet law. Clause 36 sits within the Immigration and Asylum Bill and must complete its parliamentary passage first. Advisers should track the bill's progress and prepare evidence templates that document the reasons for any late disclosure or inconsistency from the first meeting.

The official text of the Immigration and Asylum Bill remains the authoritative source for the clause wording and any amendments during passage.

The practical point: front-load the trauma explanation, because the clause assumes the worst unless told otherwise.