The High Court has ruled in favour of five Channel migrants who challenged their deportation under the Government's "one-in, one-out" returns agreement with France, dealing a significant setback to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's efforts to curb illegal crossings. The migrants, who claim to be victims of trafficking, successfully argued that a rule change stripping them of the right to appeal decisions was unlawful, a judgment expected to open the door for other asylum seekers to contest their removals under the same scheme.

The case centred on Mahmood's decision to remove the right of migrants to appeal rulings that did not recognise them as victims of human trafficking. The group's barrister argued that migrants' fundamental rights could not be sacrificed for the sake of "expediency and speed of decision-making or a desire to accelerate removals". Under the treaty with France, small boat migrants can be detained and returned in exchange for an equal number of people arriving through a legal route; the arrangement has reportedly involved 921 small boat migrants so far.