A high court judge has blocked the removal of an Eritrean trafficking survivor to France under the UK’s “one in, one out” scheme. The judge warns that the policy could inflict further harm on those it claims to protect.
The ruling sharpens scrutiny of a controversial deal designed to deter Channel crossings by forcibly returning people who arrive in the UK in exchange for others transferred through legal routes. Critics say the policy is not only ineffective—it actively endangers survivors of modern slavery.
A trafficking survivor at risk
Authorities recognised the 31-year-old man as a trafficking victim after militia detained and exploited him in Libya. He arrived in the UK by small boat in August and remains in detention with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mr Justice Sheldon halted his removal, citing serious risks if authorities return him to France. As reported by The Guardian,
There may be difficulties for “one in, one out” returners accessing accommodation in France and that they were likely to face barriers accessing their entitlement to healthcare in the French system.
The judge also found that French authorities would likely fail to recognise him as a trafficking victim, “as the trafficking did not take place in France.”
The justice concluded there is a “real doubt” the man could access timely mental health care and warned he is “likely to suffer harm to his mental health if he is removed forcibly to France.”
A policy that ignores modern slavery
The case exposes a core flaw: the scheme does not account for how trafficking operates across borders. Instead, it treats people as interchangeable units in a deterrence system.
Elizabeth Cole, a lawyer at Duncan Lewis solicitors, said the ruling highlights systemic gaps in protection:
We are encouraged that the court has recognised shortcomings in the French system in terms of identifying and supporting victims of trafficking.
She added that failures include not identifying victims trafficked outside France and not ensuring “appropriate support, including accommodation and healthcare,” is accessible in time.
These are not isolated issues. By transferring survivors between countries without guaranteed protection, the policy increases vulnerability. It risks denying recognition, interrupting care, and exposing people to further harm—undermining the purpose of modern slavery protections.
What needs to change
If governments want to combat trafficking, they must move beyond deterrence-based policies that increase harm.
Safe migration pathways are essential. Without them, people will continue to take dangerous routes where traffickers operate with impunity. Governments must also coordinate cross-border systems that recognise and support trafficking survivors, regardless of where exploitation occurred.
Policies that shift responsibility without ensuring protection do not stop trafficking—they enable it.
The court’s intervention offers a clear warning: without survivor-centred approaches, anti-trafficking commitments risk becoming hollow. Protecting people from modern slavery requires more than rhetoric—it demands policies that are humane, coordinated, and grounded in real protection.
Stand with Freedom United and demand that this cruel “one in, one out” scheme is abolished, and that genuine, anti-trafficking safe routes be implemented now.
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.