An Eritrean man who arrived in the UK by small boat has won a last-minute legal claim to temporarily block his removal to France.
The 25-year-old, who reached the UK on 12 August, was due to be returned on Wednesday under the “one in, one out” returns pilot scheme agreed in July between the UK and France.
In the first legal challenge against the deal, in the High Court in London, his lawyers argued he needed more time to present evidence that he might have been the victim of modern day slavery – and the decision to remove him had been rushed.
Lawyers for the Home Office argued that he could have claimed asylum in France and that he had shown no evidence of why it was not a safe country.
They added that delaying his departure could encourage others allocated to the return flights this week to come forward and make similar claims, and undermine the public interest in deterring lethal small boat crossings.
But during the hearing, it emerged that while the home secretary’s own officials had rejected his claim that he was a victim of slavery, they had also said in a letter today that he had a right to make further representations – and they would not expect him to do that from France.
The injunction raises serious questions about whether other migrants allocated to flights will use the same grounds to delay or block their transport out of the UK – or are being subjected to rushed decisions.
Mr Justice Sheldon, who rejected the man’s claim that he would be left homeless and destitute in France, said that he would nevertheless have to temporarily block the man’s departure in light of that development.
“There is a serious issue to be tried in relation to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner,” he said.
“If there was a reasonable suspicion that he was trafficked – and that does not mean trafficked in or from France – that would amount to a statutory bar to removal for at least a short period of time.”
The judge said the man’s lawyers must do all that is possible to make further representations within 14 days, so that his case can be finalised at a future hearing.
Papers logged at the High Court show that the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, left Ethiopia for Europe two years ago, arriving in Italy in April 2025.
A month later, he left for France where he was assisted by charities including the Red Cross, before his mother paid $1,400 (£1,024) to smugglers for his Channel crossing to the UK.
The court heard that he told his initial screening interview with British officials that he had not been exploited and had been paid when he worked as a labourer in Libya.
Asked why he had not sought asylum before arriving in the UK, the man said he had seen people sleeping on the streets in Europe and had concluded there was no support.
Officials said he should have claimed asylum there because he was not under the control of trafficking gangs.
However, Sonali Naik KC, representing the man, said that the Home Office had not yet assessed whether her client was a victim of trafficking – and there had been no evaluation of whether sending him to France would leave him destitute.
The “one in, one out” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.
Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.
For each person returned to France, the UK would accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.
No-one has yet been removed under the scheme. The first returns to France had been expected to begin from Tuesday.
Over the last fortnight, some migrants being held in immigration removal centres received letters that said they would be put on a scheduled Air France flight departing from Heathrow Airport for Paris at 9am this morning.
However, a number of sources told the BBC that some of the potential passengers had been told their departure would be deferred as further representations about their cases were made.
Asked by reporters – before the High Court ruling – if the scheme was a “shambles”, a government spokesperson said “no”.
They added that the government was “confident in the legal basis for this pilot, we’ve taken steps to ensure it’s compliant with domestic and international law; as with any policy, we’re prepared to respond to any legal scrutiny that occurs”.