Second Migrant Challenges Removal to France in High Court

Legal Challenges Continue as Migrant Faces Deportation to France

A second migrant, who is currently seeking to prevent his removal to France under the UK government’s “one in, one out” policy, is set to be deported early on Friday. The individual, whose identity remains confidential, has filed a legal challenge against the Home Office ahead of his scheduled departure at 6:15 am.

This case follows a similar legal battle involving an Eritrean man, who successfully secured a temporary halt to his deportation after a judge determined there was a “serious issue to be tried” regarding the legality of his removal. The court found that there were concerns about whether he had been trafficked, raising questions about the appropriateness of the process for handling vulnerable individuals.

The current legal action comes after the first migrant was returned to France under the policy earlier this week, with additional flights planned in the coming days. This marks the latest development in the pilot scheme, which was agreed upon between the UK and French governments in July. The initiative aims to address the rising number of small boat crossings into the UK, with over 31,000 people arriving in 2025 alone.

During a hearing in London, Sonali Naik KC, representing the unnamed migrant, described him as an “alleged trafficking victim.” She emphasized the need for the court to consider whether the Home Office is appropriately handling cases involving vulnerable individuals. The judge, Mr Justice Sheldon, granted the individual anonymity, citing his medical needs and claims of being a trafficking victim. He also noted that the man provided details about his journey from Eritrea.

The Home Office is contesting the legal challenge, arguing that there is “no serious issue to be tried.” However, the court has raised concerns about the decision-making process, particularly in light of ongoing investigations into the trafficking claim.

Key Issues in the Case

• Legal Process Concerns: The court is examining whether the Home Office followed the correct procedures when making the removal decision.
• Vulnerability of the Claimant: The migrant asserts that he is vulnerable due to potential trauma from trafficking and physical injuries.
• Access to Support in France: There are concerns about whether the individual will receive adequate support if returned to France, especially regarding the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which identifies and assists victims of trafficking.

The judge ruled that while there may not be a “real risk” of destitution, there is still a need for further investigation into the trafficking claim. He ordered that the case return to court as soon as possible, allowing the claimant to make additional representations.

The Home Office has announced plans to appeal the ruling, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stating her commitment to preventing what she calls “vexatious, last-minute claims.” The department has also revised its policy on reconsidering modern slavery decisions, stating that those being removed to safe countries will no longer be able to appeal NRM decisions directly.

Instead, they can pursue judicial review from another country, such as France. Ms. Naik criticized the Home Office for not providing sufficient assurances about the safety of the process in France, emphasizing the need for clarity on how trafficking claims will be addressed.

Ongoing Legal and Policy Debates

The case highlights broader concerns about the implementation of the “one in, one out” policy and its impact on vulnerable individuals. The judge expressed concern that the removal decision may have been made hastily, without fully considering the migrant’s circumstances.

Representatives for the Home Office, including Sian Reeves, argued that the Secretary of State acted appropriately, citing ample information available at the time. They maintained that the migrant’s rights would be protected in France, where trafficking claims can be investigated.

As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future challenges under the new policy. It underscores the complex balance between immigration control and ensuring that vulnerable individuals receive proper protection and support.