Migrants win High Court battle against one-in, one-out deal in massive blow to Mahmood scheme
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.
- High Court backs five migrants against the UK-France returns deal.
- Ruling could let more asylum seekers challenge their deportation.
- Blow to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's crackdown on crossings.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The government's position recognises that controlling irregular immigration requires efficient decision-making and that the one-in-one-out scheme represents a pragmatic negotiated solution with France to manage small boat crossings. The argument holds that extensive appeal rights can be exploited to delay removals indefinitely, undermining the scheme's effectiveness and its deterrent value. Governments have a legitimate duty to enforce immigration law and protect their borders, and this responsibility cannot function if every removal decision becomes subject to unlimited legal challenge.
The case against
The court's judgment upholds that fundamental legal protections—particularly the right to appeal—cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience or speed. This position holds that vulnerable people, especially trafficking victims, require robust procedural safeguards; without the right to appeal, individuals have no recourse if their circumstances are wrongly assessed or their victimisation status overlooked. The rule of law principle demands that efficiency gains cannot justify removing basic procedural protections that shield individuals from potentially arbitrary state action.