The UK government has announced plans to appeal a High Court ruling that found part of its policy governing the deportation of Channel migrants under the UK-France “one in, one out” returns agreement was unlawful.
The judgment centred on a Home Office policy introduced last September that limited the ability of certain migrants to challenge decisions rejecting claims that they were victims of human trafficking or modern slavery before being removed to France.
Five migrants—four from Eritrea and one from Sudan—successfully challenged the policy, arguing that denying them the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of those decisions breached their legal rights. The migrants had either been selected for removal to France or had already been deported under the bilateral agreement.
Their lawyers argued that migrants often require additional time to gather medical evidence, legal reports and other documentation needed to support trafficking claims, particularly after arriving in the UK in poor physical condition and without English language skills.
The High Court agreed, finding that the policy increased the risk that genuine victims of trafficking would not be properly identified before deportation. Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that the Home Secretary’s amendment to the guidance was unlawful because it negatively affected some of the claimants.
However, the court also upheld most of the Home Office’s wider immigration decisions in the case, including findings that the migrants’ asylum claims were clearly unfounded and that their protection claims could be treated as inadmissible.
Following the ruling, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed that the government would appeal, insisting that last-minute trafficking and modern slavery claims should not be used to delay or prevent the removal of people who entered the UK illegally.
A Home Office spokesperson said the government remains committed to reforming immigration laws to prevent what it described as unfounded last-minute claims while maintaining protections for genuine victims of trafficking and modern slavery.
The legal challenge has raised questions about the operation of the UK-France returns agreement, which came into force in August last year. Under the arrangement, migrants who arrive in the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats can be returned to France, while the UK accepts an equivalent number of asylum seekers through safe and legal pathways.
Since the agreement began, 921 small boat migrants have been returned to France, while 896 asylum seekers have been transferred to the UK under the reciprocal scheme.
Government sources have stressed that the High Court ruling does not invalidate the broader agreement with France and that removals under the scheme can continue while the appeal proceeds.
Opposition politicians argued the judgment exposed weaknesses in the government’s immigration strategy, claiming legal challenges based on trafficking or human rights could continue to delay deportations.
Immigration lawyers, however, said the ruling could have wider implications if upheld. It may require the Home Office to allow rejected trafficking claims to be reconsidered before deportations take place and could lead to reviews of previous decisions made under the disputed guidance.
The Court noted that migrants arriving after dangerous Channel crossings may be malnourished, exhausted and unable to present key evidence immediately after arrival, making rapid decisions on trafficking claims more likely to overlook genuine victims.