In a significant legal setback for the government, the Home Office has been blocked from appealing a decision that halted the deportation of an Eritrean man to Rwanda. The ruling strikes a blow to the controversial 'one-in, one-out' asylum policy championed by ministers.
Court Rejects Government's Bid
The High Court refused the Home Office permission to challenge an earlier injunction that prevented the man's removal. This individual, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been slated for deportation under the new policy framework.
Mr Justice Lane stated that the Home Office's case had no realistic prospect of success on appeal. The judge emphasised that the interim measure stopping the deportation was correctly granted, citing the potential for 'irreversible harm' should the man be sent to Rwanda before a full judicial review of the policy could be heard.
A Challenge to the 'One-In, One-Out' Policy
This case represents a direct challenge to the government's key immigration pledge. The policy aims to deport one asylum seeker for every individual admitted through safe and legal routes. Critics argue the policy is unworkable and inhumane.
The Eritrean man's lawyers successfully argued that deporting him before his legal case was fully heard would render any subsequent victory meaningless. The court agreed, finding a substantial judicial review case against the policy's legality.
What Happens Next?
The full judicial review of the 'one-in, one-out' policy itself is now expected to proceed, with a hearing likely in the coming months. This ruling effectively puts a temporary brake on similar deportations under this specific policy until the wider legal questions are resolved.
A Home Office spokesperson expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating they are 'considering the judgment carefully'. Meanwhile, human rights groups have hailed the decision as a vital protection of due process.
