LONDON (BN24) — A 25-year-old Eritrean man has won a last-minute legal bid to block his removal to France under the UK’s “one in, one out” migrant returns agreement with Paris, in the first court challenge against the newly launched scheme.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had arrived in the UK earlier this year after crossing the Channel in a small boat. He was due to be returned to France on Wednesday as part of a bilateral deal announced in July by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron. Under the arrangement, France agreed to take back individuals who entered the UK unlawfully and whose asylum claims were withdrawn or deemed inadmissible, while Britain pledged to accept an equal number of refugees waiting in France with valid claims.
During an emergency hearing at the High Court in London, the man’s lawyers argued that he had been given insufficient time to present evidence suggesting he may have been a victim of modern slavery. They said the Home Office’s decision to remove him was rushed and failed to investigate his background adequately.
Mr Justice Sheldon agreed that there were “serious issues to be tried” regarding whether the Home Secretary had properly fulfilled her legal duties in assessing his trafficking claims. Though the judge dismissed arguments that the man would face homelessness or destitution in France, he granted a temporary injunction, citing a letter from the Home Office that acknowledged the man still had the right to submit further representations—something they would not expect him to do from outside the UK.
“If there were a reasonable suspicion that he was trafficked — and that does not mean trafficked in or from France — that would amount to a statutory bar to removal for at least a short period of time,” the judge said. He gave the man’s legal team 14 days to submit any further evidence so the case could be resolved in a future hearing.
The ruling represents a significant, albeit temporary, legal obstacle to the government’s returns plan. Science Secretary Liz Kendall, speaking to the BBC, described the injunction as “an interim judgment on one individual” and insisted it would not derail the broader policy. “It will not stop this significant deal from going ahead,” Kendall said, reiterating that those who arrive in the UK illegally “can and will be deported.”
A spokesperson for the Home Office also emphasized that the court’s decision would not prevent the start of returns under the deal, which had not yet seen any individuals removed at the time of the ruling. However, sources indicated that several migrants scheduled to depart on the same Air France flight from Heathrow had already been told their departures were deferred, pending further legal representations.
Court documents show the Eritrean man left Ethiopia two years ago, arriving in Italy in April 2025. He then traveled to France, receiving aid from charities including the Red Cross, before his mother paid smugglers $1,400 to facilitate his journey across the Channel.
More than 30,000 people have arrived in the UK via small boats so far this year—the highest number ever recorded by this point in the calendar year since data collection began in 2018. Officials hoped the new agreement with France would help deter dangerous crossings and reduce the growing backlog of asylum cases.
Yet critics say the selection process for removal under the deal has been rushed. Danny Shaw, a former Home Office adviser, said the government had appeared to select people who had only recently arrived in the UK, leaving little time to assess complex individual circumstances.
Imogen Townley, a solicitor with Wilson LLP who has represented asylum seekers, described the government’s approach as “arbitrary and chaotic,” adding that while legal delays may frustrate ministers, they are essential for ensuring due process. “It’s not realistic to think that individuals caught up in the scheme do not have individual circumstances preventing their removal,” she said.
Political reaction has been mixed. Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch responded to the ruling by saying, “We told you so,” and called for stricter immigration laws, claiming the UK was becoming “a refuge for anyone who may have even the slightest bit of unhappiness in any other country.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also criticized the returns policy, arguing that the “one in, one out” principle would still result in a net increase in migration.
Though the government says the legal framework for the returns pilot complies with both domestic and international law, the High Court ruling is likely to reignite debate over the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue is expected to feature prominently at next month’s Conservative Party conference, where speculation continues over whether the party will advocate for withdrawal from the ECHR—a move Prime Minister Starmer has ruled out.
Despite the delay, the Home Office remains committed to launching the first removals under the UK-France deal, as the government attempts to assert control over illegal migration while facing scrutiny over the legal and humanitarian complexities of removals.
Credit: BBC News
