In a landmark ruling, the British High Court declared that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims under the "one in, one out" asylum returns agreement with France was unlawful. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Sheldon on Friday, stemmed from a legal challenge brought by five small boat asylum seekers—four Eritreans and one Sudanese—who were earmarked for return to France under the scheme.
Background of the One In, One Out Scheme
The "one in, one out" deal involves forcibly returning one person who traveled from France to the UK on a small boat in exchange for another asylum seeker in France who has not attempted to cross the Channel. Since the scheme began in August 2023, over 1,000 individuals have been removed to France, with many subsequently disappearing. Hundreds more remain in UK detention centers awaiting forced return.
The controversy centers on a change in guidance that removed the right for asylum seekers denied trafficking protections to request reconsideration. The Home Secretary argued that France, as a signatory to treaties protecting trafficking victims, could handle their cases. However, the court heard evidence that victims of trafficking who are not French or were not trafficked in France do not receive the same protections in France, whereas in the UK all trafficking victims are entitled to equal safeguards.
Court Findings and Implications
Mr Justice Sheldon found that the amendment to the trafficking guidance made a "real difference" in two of the five asylum seekers' cases but did not affect two others. The judge stated, "In my judgment such a decision-making process cannot be regarded as robust and effective." All five applicants were granted permission to proceed with their legal claims.
The ruling is expected to have significant consequences, as many small boat arrivals may be trafficking victims, particularly those who passed through Libya. Lawyers for some of the affected individuals have called for their clients to be returned to the UK from France.
Victim Testimonies and Legal Reactions
The asylum seekers included an Eritrean man who described being held in an underground detention facility in Libya, where he was kidnapped, beaten, and deprived of food. Two other Eritreans recounted being held against their will in Libya, with one stating that many of those with him died and he was forced to dig graves. A fourth Eritrean said he was trafficked four times, including being kidnapped in Ethiopia and forced to dig trenches near the Polish border by Belarusian soldiers. The fifth, a Sudanese man, fled after the Rapid Support Forces attacked his village and killed his family members.
Elizabeth Cole, a solicitor at Duncan Lewis representing two of the asylum seekers, welcomed the court's decision. "This has had significant consequences: large numbers of vulnerable people have been unlawfully removed to France as a result," Cole said. "We now urge the home secretary to acknowledge her obligations under both the treaty and domestic law, and bring our client, as well as potentially many others who have been unlawfully removed, back to the UK."
One of Cole's clients expressed hopelessness, stating, "I believe that the Home Office had all the evidence in my case, but chose not to consider this. In their doing so, they failed to consider my case properly. I truly believe if they had properly considered my evidence, I would not have been returned to France."
Emma Ginn, director of the charity Medical Justice, criticized the government's approach. "This is symptomatic of the government's reprehensible attitude to trafficking survivors. Our clients' medical evidence is disregarded and their trafficking disclosures are treated as an inconvenient impediment to removal."
Government Response and Next Steps
A Home Office spokesperson defended the policy, stating, "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 spokesperson confirmed that the Home Secretary would appeal the judgment.
