On the morning of September 17, 2025, an Eritrean asylum seeker who arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat narrowly avoided deportation to France after the High Court granted a last-minute legal reprieve. The man, whose identity remains protected for legal reasons, was scheduled to board a flight at 9am as part of the UK’s controversial ‘one in, one out’ migrant scheme. Instead, he remains in the UK—at least for now—while a legal challenge over his removal proceeds.
The case has thrown a spotlight on the government’s latest attempt to address record numbers of Channel crossings. According to ITV News, the ‘one in, one out’ deal was hammered out between the UK and French governments in July 2025. The arrangement allows the UK to send asylum seekers who arrived by crossing the Channel back to France, in exchange for admitting approved applicants from France. It’s a pilot scheme, and the first detentions under the policy took place just last month. Migrants have since been held at immigration removal centers while awaiting deportation flights.
But the government’s plan hit a major snag when the High Court intervened in the Eritrean man’s case. At the heart of the legal challenge are questions of vulnerability and human rights. The man claims to have a gunshot wound in his leg and says he is a victim of trafficking—a claim initially rejected by the national referral mechanism (NRM), which assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking. However, the NRM also invited him to submit further evidence and representations, leaving the door open for further investigation.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Mr Justice Sheldon made clear that the situation was far from resolved. “I am going to grant a short period of interim relief,” he announced, according to The Evening Standard. “The status quo is that the claimant is currently in this country and has not been removed. So, I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am, but that this matter should come back to this court as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant… will make on his trafficking decision.”
The judge’s decision followed a recent NRM finding: “There was a decision reached that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had been trafficked. However, that decision also refers to the opportunity for the claimant to make representations so that the decision can be reconsidered. So in my view there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether or not the removal decision is lawful in circumstances where there is still room for further investigation into the trafficking claim being brought by the claimant.”
Representing the Eritrean man, barrister Sonali Naik KC argued that her client faced a “real risk of destitution” if returned to France. She told the court, “There is a serious issue to be tried about whether or not the man would be destitute if returned to France.” Naik also highlighted her client’s vulnerability, emphasizing the gunshot wound and the ongoing trafficking claim. “We are not dealing with a charter flight, it is simply a postponement,” she added, stressing that the legal challenge was not an attempt to indefinitely delay removal but to ensure proper consideration of his circumstances.
The court heard that about a third of asylum seekers in France are not accommodated and are given a daily allowance of just 7.50 euros. This, Naik argued, heightened the risk of hardship for her client if removed. The man’s journey was also detailed in court: he traveled to Italy in April 2025, then to France, and finally arrived in the UK in August 2025.
The Home Office, for its part, defended the decision to deport the man. In written submissions, government barrister Kate Grange KC pointed out that “the claimant asserts that he was destitute, but no less than two charities had indicated they would provide him with accommodation if he claimed asylum.” Grange argued, “It is no answer that the claimant had friends who had claimed asylum and were living on the street, or that he wasn’t sure how long accommodation was being offered. He could have claimed asylum.”
Grange further contended that the government’s agreement with France “pursues an important public objective.” She explained, “Serious injury and death, including of children, from small boat crossings in the English Channel is a grave social and political concern at the present time.” The government’s position is that the policy is necessary to deter dangerous crossings and to manage migration in an orderly way.
Despite the High Court’s temporary block, Downing Street signaled its determination to press ahead with the scheme. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman told reporters, “For obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that.” Nevertheless, he insisted that deportations are expected to begin “imminently.”
The case has exposed the complexities and controversies surrounding the ‘one in, one out’ scheme. On one side, government officials argue that the policy is a necessary response to a surge in Channel crossings and a way to prevent tragic deaths at sea. On the other, critics—including legal advocates for asylum seekers—warn that vulnerable individuals risk being sent into destitution or danger without adequate safeguards.
In court, Justice Sheldon acknowledged both the urgency of the government’s objectives and the need for due process. He noted that, based on arguments made in court, it did not seem to him that there was a “real risk” the man would “suffer destitution if he was to be returned to France.” Still, he stressed that the legal challenge raised “a serious issue to be tried as to whether or not the removal decision is lawful in circumstances where there is still room for further investigation into the trafficking claim.”
The broader context for the case is the record number of small boat arrivals in the UK so far this year, as reported by ITV News. The government hopes that the pilot scheme with France will serve as a deterrent, but its implementation has already proven fraught with legal and logistical hurdles. The first deportation flights under the scheme have reportedly taken off with few or no migrants on board, highlighting the operational challenges involved.
For now, the Eritrean man’s fate remains uncertain. A further hearing on his case is scheduled for a later date, and the outcome could have significant implications for the future of the ‘one in, one out’ policy. As the legal process unfolds, the government’s resolve to push ahead with deportations will be tested against the courts’ insistence on procedural fairness and individual rights.
As the UK navigates its latest attempt to reform asylum policy, this case stands as a vivid illustration of the tensions between border control, humanitarian obligations, and the rule of law. The coming weeks may determine not only the fate of one man, but also the direction of Britain’s approach to migration across the Channel.
