The UK government’s ambitious new migrant returns deal with France has hit a major stumbling block after a High Court ruling temporarily blocked the deportation of an Eritrean man, raising fresh doubts about the future of the “one in, one out” scheme. The decision, handed down on September 16, 2025, by Mr Justice Sheldon, granted the 25-year-old man a short period of interim relief just hours before he was due to be flown to France. The case has reignited the fierce debate over the UK’s approach to asylum seekers and the legal protections afforded to some of the most vulnerable people crossing the Channel.
The Eritrean man, who arrived in the UK by small boat in August, claimed to be a victim of modern slavery. His lawyers argued in court that he needed more time to present evidence supporting his trafficking claims, contending that the Home Office’s decision to remove him was rushed and potentially unlawful. According to BBC, his appeal was made just hours before his scheduled flight, a move that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has described as a “last minute attempt to frustrate a removal.”
“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, vowing to “fight to end vexatious, last-minute claims” and to “robustly defend the British public's priorities in any court.” She added, “I will do whatever it takes to secure our border.” The Home Office is now appealing the High Court’s decision and reviewing the Modern Slavery Act to ensure it is not being misused.
But the court’s ruling has cast a shadow over the UK-France agreement, which was signed in July 2025 in an effort to curb the record number of small boat crossings this year. Under the pilot deal, the UK would return asylum seekers who crossed the Channel to France, in exchange for France accepting a small initial number of deportations, with hopes of scaling up the scheme over time. The policy was seen as a landmark achievement by the previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, and is now a key test for her successor, Mahmood.
According to The Guardian, Mr Justice Sheldon halted the removal after the national referral mechanism, which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking, invited the Eritrean man to make further representations. “It seems there is a serious issue to be tried with respect of the trafficking claim and whether or not the secretary of state has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner,” Sheldon stated. He concluded, “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.”
The judge’s decision was not a blanket condemnation of the entire scheme. Sheldon emphasized that he was granting only a “short period of interim relief,” leaving open the possibility that the claimant could eventually be deported if his trafficking claims are not substantiated. Nevertheless, the case has prompted comparisons to the previous Conservative government’s controversial Rwanda deportation plan, which became mired in repeated legal challenges before being scrapped by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer upon taking office.
The Home Office’s legal team argued that the Eritrean man could have claimed asylum in France, and warned that delaying his removal could encourage others facing deportation to make similar last-minute claims, undermining the government’s efforts to deter dangerous Channel crossings. Yet the High Court’s intervention has highlighted the complexity of removing migrants who may be victims of trafficking or torture—a challenge that could lead to more legal hurdles in the weeks ahead.
Emma Ginn, director of the charity Medical Justice, told The Guardian that “the vast majority” of people detained for the “one in, one out” scheme are survivors of torture and trafficking, raising the prospect of further court defeats for the government. The difficulty is compounded by the requirements of the treaty with France: the UK must notify French authorities if a deportee may need medical assistance or care. In fact, flights planned to deport rejected asylum seekers to Paris on September 15 and 16 were dropped amid French concerns that the Home Office had not provided adequate notice of the vulnerabilities of some individuals, such as victims of trafficking and torture.
Despite these setbacks, ministers remain determined to press ahead with the removals. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Times Radio, “This is one person, it is not going to undermine the fundamental basis of this deal.” She declined to comment on operational details, but the government’s resolve appears undiminished, even as the first flights to France left empty earlier this week. The Home Office insists that the first removals under the pilot scheme are still expected to go ahead in the coming days.
The legal wrangling has reignited a broader debate about the UK’s human rights obligations and the limits of parliamentary sovereignty when it comes to deportations. Some politicians have called for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent such legal blockages, a move championed by Reform UK and increasingly discussed among Conservatives. However, as The Guardian points out, even if the UK were to leave the ECHR, other international conventions—including the Refugee Convention, the Torture Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—would continue to provide protections against deportation in certain circumstances.
Moreover, many of these rights are also enshrined in British common law, and judges in England and Wales would still be duty-bound to uphold them. The UK’s legal culture, unlike that of countries with politically appointed judiciaries, tends to prioritize individual rights and due process, making it difficult for any government to simply legislate away protections for vulnerable migrants.
For now, the government’s review of the Modern Slavery Act and its appeal against the High Court’s decision signal a determination to prevent what it sees as “vexatious” claims from undermining its border security priorities. But the outcome of this and similar cases will likely shape the future of the UK’s migration policy, and test the limits of its international commitments.
As the debate rages on, the fate of the “one in, one out” scheme—and the migrants caught up in it—remains uncertain. The government faces the challenge of balancing its pledge to control the borders with its obligations to protect those who may be victims of trafficking or abuse, all under the watchful eye of the courts and its international partners. With the first flights to France still pending and legal challenges mounting, the coming weeks could prove pivotal for the UK’s new approach to migration.
Whatever the outcome, the case of the Eritrean man has brought the human realities behind policy headlines into sharp focus, reminding all sides that the stories at the heart of the migration debate are as complex as they are consequential.
