Just hours before his scheduled deportation, a 25-year-old man from Eritrea had his removal halted by London’s High Court. The ruling marks the first successful legal challenge to the UK’s new “one in, one out” removal policy. Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that officials had not properly investigated claims of human trafficking.
In his oral ruling, Justice Sheldon said there was “a serious issue to be tried” over whether the Home Office had fulfilled its legal duty to investigate trafficking claims before deportation. This case stresses growing fears that the scheme risks violating the UK’s obligations to protect victims of human trafficking.
A controversial scheme
The UK Prime Minister and French President announced the “one in, one out” pilot in July. The scheme aims to reduce small boat crossings in the English Channel. According to The Guardian,
Under the arrangement, the UK will send asylum seekers who have crossed the Channel back to France, in exchange for those who apply and are approved to come to Britain.
Officials presented the plan as a pragmatic deterrent to dangerous crossings. Yet, the United Nations Association-UK stated that already over 100 people have been detained for potential transfer to France. However, they note that “no applications for safe entry to the UK have reportedly been approved.”
The lack of clear procedures and safeguards presented for this scheme has fuelled sharp criticism. Human rights groups and anti-trafficking advocates warn that the government’s emphasis on deterrence over due process risks criminalising refugees. Further, the scheme risks eroding hard-won protections for victims of modern slavery.
Risk to trafficking survivors and victims of torture
Campaigners argue the pilot puts trafficking survivors directly in harm’s way. Many of those detained under the scheme just arrived in the UK. Many have not had time to present evidence of their exploitation or receive vital medical and psychological assessments. This undermines the National Referral Mechanism—the UK’s official process for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery.
Emma Ginn, director of the charity Medical Justice, which is supporting detainees facing removal, said the vast majority detained under the scheme are torture and trafficking survivors. Ginn told The Guardian that,
“The largest group is from Eritrea. Due to the nature of what they have experienced in the countries they have passed through, histories of modern slavery and sexual abuse are recurring.”
Experts warn that deporting vulnerable people to France—where accommodation and support are already overstretched—risks exposing them to destitution, renewed exploitation, and abuse. This raises concerns not only about compliance with domestic protections but also about breaches of international obligations, including the Refugee Convention and the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking framework.
A critical test for the UK’s modern slavery commitments
The High Court’s ruling exposes how the “one in, one out” policy could deny trafficking survivors their rights and protections. It also highlights the urgent need for clear procedures to ensure all asylum seekers—especially those who may be victims of modern slavery—receive due process.
As global displacement rises and international protections come under strain, governments must reaffirm their commitment to safeguarding those fleeing persecution and exploitation. Freedom United is calling on governments around the globe to prioritise fair and humane immigration policies—a necessity to prevent and protect against human trafficking. Take action.
Freedom United is interested in hearing from our community and welcomes relevant, informed comments, advice, and insights that advance the conversation around our campaigns and advocacy. We value inclusivity and respect within our community. To be approved, your comments should be civil.