On the morning of September 17, 2025, a scheduled deportation flight from the United Kingdom to France took off with an unexpected passenger list: not a single asylum seeker was on board. The absence of deportees was the result of a last-minute legal intervention, thrusting the government’s flagship migrant returns deal with France into the national spotlight and igniting fierce debate across the political spectrum.
The case at the heart of this controversy involves a 25-year-old Eritrean man, who arrived in Britain on August 12, 2025, after crossing the English Channel on a small boat. His removal to France, set for 9am on September 17 under the UK’s new “one-in-one-out” pilot scheme with France, was abruptly halted by the High Court the previous day. The court granted him a “short period of interim relief,” temporarily blocking his deportation and allowing time for his trafficking claim to be examined in greater detail.
Judge Clive Sheldon, presiding over the case, explained his decision in clear terms: “It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.” He further stated, “If there is a reasonable suspicion he has been trafficked, that would amount to a statutory bar for removal, at least for a short period of time.” According to The Times and Reuters, the judge also noted that, based on the arguments presented, there did not appear to be a "real risk" that the man would "suffer destitution if he was to be returned to France," but emphasized that the case should return to court promptly for further consideration.
The Eritrean man’s lawyers argued that their client was a vulnerable trafficking victim, suffering from a gunshot wound in his leg and at risk of destitution if sent to France. The Home Office, however, maintained it was reasonable to expect the man to claim asylum in France, as the new returns arrangement intends.
This legal twist comes as part of a broader pilot scheme, hammered out in July 2025 by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron. The agreement allows the UK to return asylum seekers who cross the Channel, in exchange for taking in approved applicants from France. The government sees the initiative as a crucial step toward curbing the flow of small boats—a route used by more than 30,000 migrants so far in 2025, according to Reuters and The Washington Examiner.
Yet, the first scheduled deportation flight on September 15 left without any asylum seekers on board, a symbolic setback for the government’s efforts. As ITV News reported, government ministers were quick to downplay the implications. Liz Kendall, a senior minister, stressed that the High Court’s ruling was “an interim decision about one person,” insisting that the returns deal would still go ahead. “We have a clear simple message,” she said. “If you come to this country illegally, you can, and you will be returned.”
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood was even more forthright in her response, pledging to fight what she described as “vexatious, last-minute claims” that, in her view, undermine the country’s legal system and generosity. “Migrants suddenly deciding that they are a modern slave on the eve of their removal, having never made such a claim before, make a mockery of our laws and this country’s generosity,” Mahmood said, according to Reuters and BBC. “I will fight to end vexatious, last-minute claims. I will robustly defend the British public’s priorities in any court. And I will do whatever it takes to secure our border.”
For the Labour-led government, the episode has been a political headache. Prime Minister Starmer’s “one-in-one-out” deal, designed to balance humanitarian obligations with public concern over rising Channel crossings, has drawn fire from both the right and the left. Conservative critics, including party leader Kemi Badenoch, seized on the court ruling as evidence of a flawed strategy, with Badenoch remarking, “We told you so.” Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp went further, calling the returns scheme “another failed gimmick from this weak Government.” He argued, “Unless they disapply the Human Rights Act for immigration cases, their meagre returns deal would collapse in court.”
On the other end of the spectrum, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage dismissed the government’s approach as fundamentally unworkable. “Even if the policy worked—one in, one out, and another one in—still means plus one for every one that crosses the Channel,” Farage said in a video posted to social media, as reported by The Washington Examiner. He further mocked the government, noting that the only people deported on the empty flight were journalists: “Labour managed to deport more journalists than illegal migrants today.”
Farage’s party, currently topping some opinion polls, has made mass deportations a central plank of its platform. At a recent event, Farage promised to deport approximately 600,000 illegal migrants over five years and advocated for withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations’s 1951 Refugee Convention to sidestep judicial obstacles.
Public frustration is palpable. A recent YouGov poll found that nearly half of Britons would support not only halting new migrant admissions but also requiring large numbers of recent arrivals to leave. This sentiment has fueled demands for tougher measures, with critics on the right arguing that even a perfectly executed “one-in-one-out” scheme would fall short of public expectations and do little to stem the tide of small boat arrivals.
The government, for its part, remains adamant that the returns deal is a necessary step in tackling the crisis. Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones, speaking to Times Radio, refused to provide a running commentary on the evolving situation, citing security concerns. “Deportations will be happening as soon as possible,” she stated, emphasizing the need to keep operational details under wraps to avoid tipping off people-smuggling gangs.
Meanwhile, the legal and practical hurdles remain formidable. The Home Office has announced it will appeal the High Court’s decision in the Eritrean man’s case. The judge has ordered the matter to return to court “as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant… will make on his trafficking decision.”
As the government scrambles to implement its new returns policy, the fate of the Eritrean man—and many others like him—hangs in the balance. The episode underscores the complexity and contentiousness of migration policy in the UK, where legal principles, humanitarian concerns, and political pressures collide in unpredictable ways.
While officials insist the pilot scheme will proceed, the events of this week have laid bare the challenges of turning policy into practice. With over 30,000 migrants crossing the Channel in 2025 alone and legal battles mounting, the government’s quest to control its borders remains as fraught—and as politically charged—as ever.
