Just hours before his scheduled deportation, a 25-year-old man from Eritrea had his removal halted by London’s High Court. The ruling marks the first successful legal challenge to the UK’s new “one in, one out” removal policy. Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that officials had not properly investigated claims of human trafficking.

In his oral ruling, Justice Sheldon said there was “a serious issue to be tried” over whether the Home Office had fulfilled its legal duty to investigate trafficking claims before deportation. This case stresses growing fears that the scheme risks violating the UK’s obligations to protect victims of human trafficking.

A controversial scheme

The UK Prime Minister and French President announced the “one in, one out” pilot in July. The scheme aims to reduce small boat crossings in the English Channel. According to The Guardian,

Under the arrangement, the UK will send asylum seekers who have crossed the Channel back to France, in exchange for those who apply and are approved to come to Britain.

Officials presented the plan as a pragmatic deterrent to dangerous crossings. Yet, the United Nations Association-UK stated that already over 100 people have been detained for potential transfer to France. However, they note that “no applications for safe entry to the UK have reportedly been approved.”

The lack of clear procedures and safeguards presented for this scheme has fuelled sharp criticism. Human rights groups and anti-trafficking advocates warn that the government’s emphasis on deterrence over due process risks criminalising refugees. Further, the scheme risks eroding hard-won protections for victims of modern slavery.

Tell me more