UK’s decision to cut asylum protections in ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme ruled unlawful

A UK High Court has ruled that the government acted unlawfully by cutting protections for potential victims of trafficking facing removal to France under the “one-in, one-out” scheme. Under the current policy, migrants were unable to challenge rejected trafficking claims before being removed.

The court highlighted that removing the opportunity to challenge rejected trafficking claims before being removed was inconsistent with the UK’s own guidance on tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. The decision may have implications for persons who have already been removed under the policy to date.

When protection comes too late

Five asylum seekers brought the legal challenge. They argued they had been denied a meaningful opportunity to have their trafficking claims properly reviewed before removal to France.

One survivor said the experience left them with “a feeling of hopelessness.” Reflecting on their experience, the survivor said:

When a lot of individuals enter the United Kingdom to seek refuge, and have experienced a lot of difficult situations, being further mistreated is simply heart-breaking.

The survivors also described feeling treated unfairly, adding:

The overwhelming sentiment is that they do not treat people equally. Some people they place in hotels, some they return to France, like me.

For survivors of trafficking, fear, trauma and coercion can make it difficult to disclose exploitation immediately. Without time and proper review procedures, people may lose access to protections designed to support survivors of modern slavery.

80% of asylum rejection claims overturned on appeal

The trafficking reconsideration guidance was changed in September 2025 by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. The scheme prevents certain migrants due to be returned to France from requesting a reconsideration after officials concluded they were not victims of human trafficking.

For every person returned, Britain accepts one migrant from France who has never attempted the Channel crossing and has a strong protection claim. The scheme aims to expedite the removal of small boat arrivals.

However, High Court Judge Clive Sheldon ruled that the change was “unlawful,” saying the previous process should be restored.

InfoMigrants reports:

In the London court, Sheldon stressed that it was important to revert the practice, noting that nearly 80 percent of people who had initially been ruled not to be a victim of trafficking later had the decision overturned upon reconsideration.

Advocates agree the ruling carries “significant implications”, considering the high number of migrants arriving by small boat may be victims of trafficking.

The fight over trafficking safeguards continues

This is not the first time Justice Sheldon has pushed back against the “one in, one out” scheme. However, despite the judgment, the Home Office has confirmed that it will appeal the ruling. Furthermore, it stated that removals under the agreement will continue while the legal process is ongoing.

The department claims that authorities carefully consider trafficking claims made on arrival, while assessing those submitted shortly before removal differently.

But the ruling sits uneasily alongside a broader legislative push. Mahmood recently introduced a new immigration and asylum bill which strips protections for modern slavery survivors while fast-tracking the deportation of families, including children, whose asylum claims have been refused.

While the government’s appeal means the legal battle is not over, the ruling reinforces a key principle: safeguarding potential trafficking survivors must remain a priority.

Join the movement calling for safe migration policies that upholds the rights and dignity of everyone seeking safety.