THE Home Office violated the human rights of a young Vietnamese man said to be the victim of human trafficking by releasing him without protecting him from retrafficking, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

“TDT” was found by police in Kent in the back of a lorry in September 2015, along with 15 other young men and boys, six of whom were also Vietnamese, and placed in immigration detention.

But lawyers from Simpson Millar challenged the Home Office’s treatment of TDT, saying that he was “significantly under 18” and had failed to be recognised as a potential victim of trafficking.

They told the Home Office that TDT was “transported from Vietnam to the UK via Russia for the purposes of labour exploitation” and “told to sign a contract where he was told he owed his traffickers a ‘debt’.”

His traffickers had told him he would get higher wages abroad, but he had been “tricked, locked up and mistreated in Russia and various other locations” on his way to Britain, his lawyers said.

They added that “the exploitation of young Vietnamese boys in cannabis farms or nail bars in the UK is well-known.”

The Home Office was also told that “TDT may still be under the control of his traffickers and will be vulnerable to their threats and coercion when he is released,” noting that two other Vietnamese children he was detained with had gone missing.

TDT’s lawyers suggested he be housed in safe accommodation by West Sussex County Council: the council agreed, but the Home Office did not respond until judicial review proceedings were issued in November 2015.

The same day, TDT was released — but to the address of a Buddhist temple in south London. He “has not been seen by anyone and has not been in contact with [his lawyers]” since.

The High Court dismissed the claim brought on his behalf in July 2016, but the Court of Appeal found that the decision to release TDT “without having put in place adequate measures to protect him from being retrafficked” was a breach of his human rights.

Lord Justice Underhill said it was “reprehensible” that the Home Office made “no attempt” to establish whether TDT was a child.

TDT’s lawyer Silvia Nicolaou Garcia said she hoped the judgement would “lead to greater protection for victims of trafficking.”