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 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.
The injunction raises serious questions about whether other migrants allocated to flights will use the same grounds to delay or block their removal.
Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that he could have claimed asylum in France. They added that delaying his departure could encourage others allocated to the return flights to make similar claims and undermine the public interest in deterring lethal small boat crossings.
However, during the hearing, it emerged that the home secretary's own officials had rejected his claim that he was a victim of slavery, yet also acknowledged that he had a right to make further representations and would not expect him to do that from France.
Mr. Justice Sheldon, who dismissed the man's claim that he would be left homeless and destitute in France, stated the necessity of blocking the departure to address his potential trafficking case. The judge asserted there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the lawful conduct of the Secretary of State's investigatory duties.
A spokesperson for the Home Office conveyed that the government anticipated that the first returns would occur soon and that the injunction would not hinder the broader policy.
The 'one in, one out' scheme, established by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July, aims to return migrants who crossed the Channel to the UK under specific conditions. However, with ongoing legal challenges, the future of this policy remains uncertain.
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.
The injunction raises serious questions about whether other migrants allocated to flights will use the same grounds to delay or block their removal.
Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that he could have claimed asylum in France. They added that delaying his departure could encourage others allocated to the return flights to make similar claims and undermine the public interest in deterring lethal small boat crossings.
However, during the hearing, it emerged that the home secretary's own officials had rejected his claim that he was a victim of slavery, yet also acknowledged that he had a right to make further representations and would not expect him to do that from France.
Mr. Justice Sheldon, who dismissed the man's claim that he would be left homeless and destitute in France, stated the necessity of blocking the departure to address his potential trafficking case. The judge asserted there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the lawful conduct of the Secretary of State's investigatory duties.
A spokesperson for the Home Office conveyed that the government anticipated that the first returns would occur soon and that the injunction would not hinder the broader policy.
The 'one in, one out' scheme, established by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July, aims to return migrants who crossed the Channel to the UK under specific conditions. However, with ongoing legal challenges, the future of this policy remains uncertain.
