The Home Office will appeal against the High Court’s decision to temporarily block the deportation of an Eritrean man to France under the government’s controversial “one in, one out” migration scheme, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has confirmed. The legal setback represents the first successful challenge to the UK-France returns agreement and threatens to derail Labour’s flagship immigration policy.
Speaking for the first time since Tuesday evening’s court ruling, the Home Secretary launched a fierce defence of the government’s deportation programme. Last minute attempts to frustrate a removal are intolerable, and I will fight them at every step,” Ms Mahmood declared, vowing to “robustly defend the British public’s priorities” in the courts.
The High Court granted the 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, a “short period of interim relief” just hours before his scheduled 9am deportation flight to France on Wednesday morning. His lawyers successfully argued that their client faces potential trafficking risks and destitution if returned to France.
Trafficking Claims Central to Case
The legal challenge centred on claims that the man, who alleges he has a gunshot wound in his leg, is a victim of human trafficking and faces vulnerability in France. His legal team, led by Sonali Naik KC, told the court their client faces a “real risk of destitution” if deported, despite French authorities offering accommodation through charitable organisations.
Judge Clive Sheldon ruled there was “a serious issue to be tried” regarding the trafficking claim and whether the Home Secretary had properly fulfilled her investigatory duties. “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 stated.
The case follows a referral to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking. The NRM had requested additional evidence regarding the man’s trafficking claims, a process that remains pending.
Government’s Immigration Strategy Under Pressure
The blocked deportation represents a significant blow to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s efforts to tackle illegal Channel crossings through bilateral agreements with France. The “one in, one out” scheme, announced with French President Emmanuel Macron in July 2024, was designed as Labour’s alternative to the Conservative’s scrapped Rwanda plan.
Under the reciprocal arrangement, for every migrant the UK returns to France, Britain would accept one from France who has family ties in the UK. The scheme aimed to create a fast-track solution to the ongoing Channel crisis whilst maintaining humanitarian obligations.
Home Office barrister Kate Grange KC defended the government’s position, arguing that the man had travelled through Italy in April 2025 before reaching France and subsequently the UK in August. She emphasised that French charities had offered accommodation if he claimed asylum there.
Empty Flights Highlight Implementation Challenges
The court ruling adds to mounting embarrassment for the government after reports that multiple deportation flights have departed empty this week. An Air France flight on Monday left Heathrow without any asylum seekers aboard, followed by another empty flight on Tuesday, despite the government booking spaces specifically for returns under the new scheme.
The empty flights have reportedly cost taxpayers an estimated £500,000 in aborted operations, fuelling criticism from opposition parties. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp branded the situation “complete disarray”, highlighting “two flights, a legal defeat and zero deportations” whilst small boat arrivals continue unchecked.
Since the announcement of the UK-France deal in July 2024, not a single deportation has taken place under the scheme. Meanwhile, over 31,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far in 2025, putting the year on course to potentially break previous records.
Legal Precedent Fears
The successful legal challenge has raised concerns about setting a precedent that could undermine future deportation attempts. The ruling echoes the 2022 European Court injunction that grounded the Conservative government’s Rwanda deportation flight, demonstrating the ongoing influence of human rights legislation on immigration policy.
Ms Mahmood specifically addressed the issue of “vexatious, last-minute claims” in her statement, promising to “fight to end” such legal challenges. The Home Secretary’s combative stance signals the government’s determination to overcome judicial obstacles to its immigration agenda.
Legal experts note that whilst the injunction is temporary – lasting just 14 days – it provides crucial time for the man’s legal team to build their case. The court will reconvene to hear full arguments, potentially establishing important legal principles for future deportation cases.
Political Ramifications Mount
The setback has provided ammunition for political opponents across the spectrum. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch delivered a pointed “we told you so” message to ministers, whilst Reform UK leader Nigel Farage accused the government of “not telling the truth” about its immigration plans.
Mr Farage argued that even if the policy functioned as intended, the mathematics remained problematic: “Even if the policy worked, one in, one out, and with another one in, still means plus one for everyone that crosses the Channel.”
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall attempted to downplay the significance of the ruling, telling Times Radio: “This is one person, it is not going to undermine the fundamental basis of this deal.” She maintained that whilst disappointing, the decision would not prevent the broader agreement from proceeding.
Human Rights Concerns Persist
Human rights organisations have welcomed the court’s intervention, arguing that the government risks breaching international law by potentially denying people their right to claim asylum in the UK. Critics point to documented issues with support systems for asylum seekers in France, including homelessness and limited resources.
The man’s legal team highlighted specific vulnerabilities, including his alleged gunshot wound and potential trafficking history. They argued that despite France being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, this alone was “not going to be sufficient” to prevent destitution.
Previous cases have established that asylum seekers have faced “inhuman and degrading” conditions in France, with a 2020 ruling finding systemic failures in the French reception system. These precedents strengthen arguments against deportations where vulnerability can be demonstrated.
Channel Crisis Continues
The legal battle occurs against the backdrop of an escalating Channel crisis. The Home Office revealed that 78 people directly linked to attempted Channel crossings died in 2024, underlining the human cost of dangerous maritime journeys.
With 31,026 small boat arrivals already recorded in 2025, the figure represents a potential 38% increase on previous years if current trends continue. The statistics pile pressure on the government to demonstrate effective action on what has become a defining political issue.
Ms Grange told the court that the UK-France agreement “pursues an important public objective”, emphasising that “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.”
Government Response Strategy
Despite the setback, government officials insist that deportations under the scheme remain “imminent”. Downing Street has refused to provide operational details, with the Prime Minister’s spokesperson stating they would not offer “a running commentary” on the scheme’s implementation.
The Home Office maintains its position that France is a safe country where asylum can be claimed. Officials argue that the bilateral agreement represents a pragmatic solution that respects international obligations whilst addressing public concerns about border security.
The government has indicated it is prepared for further legal challenges, with Ms Mahmood’s promise to “fight them at every step” suggesting a confrontational approach to judicial oversight. This stance risks escalating tensions between the executive and judiciary over immigration policy.
Looking Ahead
The case will return to court within the 14-day injunction period for a full hearing on the merits of the trafficking claim. The outcome could establish significant precedents for how vulnerability assessments are conducted within the framework of the UK-France returns agreement.
Legal observers suggest the government may need to consider legislative changes to strengthen its position, potentially including modifications to how the Human Rights Act applies to immigration cases. Such moves would likely face fierce opposition from civil liberties groups and could create constitutional tensions.
For now, the Eritrean man remains in UK detention whilst his legal team prepares their full case. His situation has become a test case for the viability of Labour’s alternative approach to managing Channel crossings, with significant implications for future immigration policy.
The Home Office’s appeal will be closely watched by all sides of the immigration debate, potentially determining whether the “one in, one out” scheme can function as intended or whether judicial interventions will continue to frustrate government deportation efforts.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
Image Credit:
The Home Office, Marsham Street, Westminster, London SW1 — photo by Kevin Gordon, licensed CC BY-SA 2.0.
