On September 16, 2025, a British High Court ruling sent shockwaves through Westminster and Paris alike, as a 25-year-old Eritrean man who crossed the Channel by small boat successfully blocked his removal to France under the UK’s new “one in, one out” migrant returns scheme. The landmark case, the first legal challenge to the agreement signed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July, has cast doubt over the future of a policy touted as a solution to rising small boat crossings—and ignited a fierce debate across the political spectrum.
The man, whose identity remains protected for legal reasons, had been scheduled to board an Air France flight from Heathrow to Paris at 9am on September 17, 2025. Instead, he found himself at the center of a legal and political storm. His lawyers argued before the High Court that he needed more time to present evidence suggesting he may have been a victim of modern-day slavery—a claim they said was rushed aside by officials eager to make him the first test case of the UK-France returns deal.
At the heart of the legal battle was a letter from the UK’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the body responsible for identifying victims of slavery and human trafficking. While the NRM had initially rejected his claim, it had also invited him to submit further representations, acknowledging that he should not be expected to do so from France. This procedural twist proved pivotal. Mr Justice Clive Sheldon, presiding over the case, ruled: “There is a serious issue to be tried in relation to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.” He granted a short period of interim relief, blocking the man’s removal and instructing his lawyers to submit additional evidence within 14 days.
“If there was a reasonable suspicion that he was trafficked—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,” Judge Sheldon explained, as reported by BBC and Sky News. The judge rejected the man’s claim that he would be left homeless and destitute in France, but nonetheless found the Home Office’s investigatory process wanting.
The Eritrean’s journey to the UK was harrowing. According to court documents cited by BBC, he left Ethiopia for Europe two years ago, arriving in Italy in April 2025. A month later, he traveled to France, where he was assisted by charities including the Red Cross. Ultimately, his mother paid $1,400 (about £1,024) to smugglers for his passage across the Channel to Britain, where he arrived on August 12, 2025. His lawyers allege he carries a gunshot wound in his leg, further complicating his case.
The Home Office, for its part, argued that the man could—and should—have claimed asylum in France, where he first arrived in the European Union. Officials warned that granting delays on such grounds could encourage others to make similar claims, undermining the deterrent effect of the new policy and, ultimately, public confidence in the government’s ability to control borders. “Delaying his departure could encourage others allocated to the return flights this week to make similar claims, and undermine the public interest in deterring lethal small boat crossings,” Home Office lawyers insisted.
The “one in, one out” scheme, announced with fanfare in July 2025, was designed as a pilot to last until June 2026. Under its terms, France agreed to take back migrants who had arrived in the UK by small boat and whose asylum claims had been withdrawn or declared inadmissible. In exchange, for each person returned to France, the UK would accept a refugee with a credible protection claim who had not attempted to cross the Channel illegally. The government was quick to defend the legal basis for the scheme. “We are confident in the legal basis for this pilot, we’ve taken steps to ensure it’s compliant with domestic and international law; as with any policy, we’re prepared to respond to any legal scrutiny that occurs,” a spokesperson told BBC.
Yet, as of the court ruling, not a single migrant had actually been removed under the scheme. The first returns, expected to begin on September 16, were abruptly postponed as further representations were made for several would-be passengers. More than 30,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far in 2025—the earliest point in the year this milestone has been reached since records began in 2018, according to BBC data. The government’s hopes of a quick, deterrent effect have so far gone unrealized.
The political fallout was immediate and fierce. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch responded to news of the injunction with a pointed “we told you so,” telling LBC radio: “We are basically turning our country into a refuge for anyone who may have even the slightest bit of unhappiness in any other country.” She called for “some tough laws” to counter what she sees as legal loopholes exploited by migrants and their advocates. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was even more scathing, arguing that the policy would not reduce migration: “One in, one out, and with another one in, still means plus one for everyone that crosses the Channel.”
On the opposition benches, shadow home secretary Chris Philp lambasted the government’s handling of the deal. “Labour’s returns deal had failed to remove a single migrant, yet thousands more continue to arrive,” he said. Philp called for the disapplication of the Human Rights Act in immigration cases, warning that without such a move, “this deal would collapse in court.” He accused the government of relying on “gimmicks” instead of real action and pressed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for answers on whether even one person had been sent from France in return.
Human rights groups, meanwhile, have voiced concerns that the scheme risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum in the UK. They argue that the government’s approach, in seeking to expedite removals and limit legal recourse, could endanger vulnerable individuals and undermine the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As BBC noted, the ECHR remains a flashpoint for the political right, with speculation mounting that the Conservatives may campaign to withdraw from it—a move Prime Minister Starmer has firmly rejected.
Downing Street, for its part, insists that the “one in, one out” plan is a “fair and balanced” response to a complex challenge, and that deportations will begin imminently. “For obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that,” the prime minister’s spokesman told Al Jazeera. The government maintains that, despite the setback, the broader policy remains intact and will be delivered in accordance with both domestic and international law.
For now, the Eritrean man’s case stands as a test of both the legal and political will underpinning the UK’s new migration policy. With his lawyers given two weeks to make further representations, and with thousands more migrants arriving on British shores, the government faces mounting pressure—from the right to toughen its stance, from the left and rights groups to uphold legal protections, and from the public to deliver results. The coming weeks may reveal whether the “one in, one out” scheme can withstand the legal and moral scrutiny it now faces, or whether it will join the list of migration policies stymied by the courts and controversy.
