High Court Ruling Deals Blow to Labour's One-in-One-Out Deal
Migrants who successfully won a High Court battle against the Home Office have revealed they crossed the English Channel to pursue education in the UK and because they believe it is a better country than France, according to court documents. The ruling dealt a blow to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's one-in-one-out deal with Paris, after a group of asylum seekers claimed their deportations were unlawful.
Claimants' Reasons for Choosing the UK
One of the claimants, identified as KAG, asserted that he did not claim asylum in France due to concerns about poor treatment of asylum seekers and lack of support. He expressed a desire to claim asylum in the UK to pursue education and because he believes it is safer. Another claimant, AYA, said he did not claim asylum in France because he saw people sleeping rough on the streets. AYA also stated that he had been told the United Kingdom was a better country, which is why he came here.
Legal Challenge and Unlawful Policy Change
Immigration officials had removed a migrant's right to demand that their claims of being a victim of modern slavery be re-examined. However, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that this change was unlawful, noting that potentially crucial medical evidence is often only available after initial decisions are made. This ruling could be hugely problematic for the Home Office, as it may give migrants 30 days to have their rejected modern slavery claims re-examined.
Impact on the Treaty with France
Under the terms of the treaty, the UK has 14 days to submit paperwork for a removal, and claims must be exhausted. The High Court judgment highlighted that giving migrants 30 days to challenge rejected trafficking claims could lead to widespread abuse. Daniel Hobbs, the Director General of the Migration and Borders Group, warned that around 40% of individuals notified of the intent to return them to France under the treaty have been referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). He added that any delay to removal could have a detrimental impact on the pilot scheme.
Judge's Findings on Decision-Making Process
In his judgment, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that the amendment was unlawful, finding that potentially decisive evidence such as medical reports is often only available after the initial decision is made. He stated that for some people facing removal, including those under the deal with France, relevant evidence casting doubt on the correctness of these decisions would be disregarded. He concluded that such a decision-making process cannot be regarded as robust and effective and could not have been within the contemplation of Parliament. The judge also noted that 79% of initial decisions that were reconsidered in 2025 received a different outcome.
Home Office Response
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'Last-minute modern slavery claims must not be used to frustrate the removal of illegal migrants. We are reforming our laws to stop dubious last-minute claims, while strengthening protections for those who need them. The Home Secretary will fight this in the courts and appeal this judgment.'
