In a dramatic turn for the United Kingdom’s new approach to tackling illegal migration, a British High Court judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of a 25-year-old Eritrean man to France, halting what was set to be the first removal under the UK-France migrant returns deal. The decision, handed down by Mr Justice Clive Sheldon on Tuesday evening, has thrown the government’s much-publicized “one in, one out” scheme into the spotlight, raising questions about its legal resilience and practical effectiveness.
The Eritrean man, whose identity remains protected for legal reasons, was due to board a 9am commercial flight from London Heathrow to France on Wednesday, September 17, 2025. His removal was part of a pilot program announced in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, designed to return asylum seekers who crossed the English Channel in small boats back to France while accepting some migrants with family ties to Britain in exchange. The scheme, championed by the Labour government as a pragmatic replacement for the Conservative administration’s failed Rwanda plan, was intended to deter dangerous Channel crossings and streamline asylum processes.
But the court’s intervention—granting a “short period of interim relief”—has delayed the government’s first attempt at a return flight. The man’s lawyers argued that his case “concerns a trafficking claim,” and that he is a victim of modern slavery, having suffered harm in Libya and carrying a gunshot wound in his leg. They further contended that deportation to France would leave him vulnerable and at risk of destitution.
According to BBC, the Home Office maintained that it was reasonable to expect the man to have claimed asylum in France before arriving in the UK in August. Officials swiftly rejected his initial application, pointing to the lack of evidence he was trafficked across the Channel and noting that his mother had paid smugglers to facilitate his journey. Nevertheless, the UK’s legal framework allows for rejected applicants to request a reconsideration, particularly in cases involving claims of trafficking or modern slavery.
During the hearing, Mr Justice Sheldon remarked, “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 added that, based on the evidence presented, there did not appear to be a “real risk” of destitution if the man were returned to France. Still, the judge emphasized the need for the case 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.”
The ruling, as reported by The Associated Press, is a setback for Prime Minister Starmer’s efforts to curb small boat crossings. More than 30,000 people have made the perilous journey across the Channel so far in 2025—surpassing the same point in any previous year—after 37,000 attempted the crossing in 2024. Tragically, dozens have lost their lives in recent years navigating one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels.
For Downing Street, the blocked deportation is a frustrating development, but officials have been quick to insist that the scheme is not derailed. A Number 10 spokesperson told Sky News that the returns program is not a “shambles” and stressed that removals under the agreement will begin “imminently.” Cabinet Minister Liz Kendall echoed this sentiment, stating, “This is one person. It is not going to undermine the fundamental basis of this deal.” She also noted that the scheme was never intended as a “silver bullet” but as part of a broader effort to address illegal immigration.
Yet, the episode has exposed the legal and logistical complexities inherent in rapid-turnaround deportation plans, especially when modern slavery and trafficking claims are involved. The BBC highlighted that anyone presenting a credible argument of being a trafficking victim is entitled to at least 45 days to “recover and reflect,” with final decisions on such cases potentially taking up to a year. If the claimant ultimately receives a positive decision, he could be exempted from removal for even longer.
The opposition has seized on the government’s setback. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch declared, “We told you so,” following the court decision, arguing that the Labour administration is repeating the mistakes of its predecessors. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp was equally critical, labeling the returns scheme “another failed gimmick from this weak Government” and warning that unless the Human Rights Act is disapplied for immigration cases, court challenges will continue to undermine such policies.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, a longstanding critic of current migration policies, added his voice to the chorus of skepticism. He argued, “Even if the policy worked, one in, one out, and with another one in, still means plus one for everyone that crosses the Channel.” Farage’s remarks reflect a broader concern among critics that the scheme, even if implemented as planned, would not reduce the overall number of arrivals.
The government, for its part, remains determined to press ahead. The pilot returns scheme, set to run until June 2026, is viewed internally as a landmark achievement—initially negotiated by former home secretary Yvette Cooper and now overseen by Shabana Mahmood, who has vowed to do “whatever it takes” to tackle illegal immigration. Mahmood, recently promoted in a cabinet reshuffle, faces the daunting challenge of making the policy work amid mounting legal obstacles and public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the broader context is one of mounting pressure on the UK’s asylum system. Tens of thousands of migrants awaiting decisions are being housed in hotels at public expense, fueling public protests and political tensions. The government is also seeking to accelerate the processing of asylum claims to reduce the backlog and costs associated with prolonged stays in temporary accommodation.
France, for its part, has agreed to accept only a limited number of deportations initially, while the UK hopes to expand the program over time. The first scheduled Air France flight under the scheme departed on Monday without any asylum seekers on board, underscoring the operational challenges the government faces in translating policy into practice.
While it is too early to declare the UK-France returns deal unworkable, the High Court’s intervention is a stark reminder of the legal, humanitarian, and political hurdles that lie ahead. As the government awaits the next court date and prepares for further challenges, all eyes are on whether this new approach can succeed where others have faltered—or whether it, too, will become mired in the complexities of Britain’s migration debate.
For now, the fate of the returns deal—and the individuals at its center—remains uncertain, as the country grapples with the realities of enforcing borders in an era of global displacement and legal safeguards.
