A High Court judge has ruled that the home secretary's decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims, in order to allow the UK-France 'one in, one out' asylum returns deal to proceed, was unlawful.
Key facts
- A High Court judge ruled the home secretary's reduction of trafficking protections unlawful.
- The challenge was brought by five small boat asylum seekers earmarked for return to France.
- Four of the claimants were from Eritrea and one from Sudan.
- The change removed the right of those denied trafficking protections to ask for reconsideration.
- The dispute related to guidance for the 'one in, one out' asylum returns scheme.
A High Court judge has ruled that the British home secretary’s decision to reduce protections for potential victims of trafficking was unlawful, according to the Guardian. The reduction had been made to allow the UK-France “one in, one out” asylum returns deal to proceed.
The legal challenge was brought by five small boat asylum seekers who had been earmarked for return to France. Four of the claimants were from Eritrea and one was from Sudan, the Guardian reported.
At the centre of the case was a change in guidance on the one in, one out scheme. That change meant that people denied trafficking protections no longer had the right to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.
The court found in favour of the asylum seekers, ruling that the home secretary’s move to cut these safeguards did not comply with the law.
The ruling directly concerns the operation of the ‘one in, one out’ returns arrangement between the UK and France, which involves the return of certain asylum seekers to France.
The Guardian identified the home secretary involved in the decision as Mahmood, whose reduction of the protections has now been ruled unlawful by the High Court.
Why it matters
The ruling challenges a key mechanism the government hoped to use to speed up asylum returns to France under the 'one in, one out' deal. It underscores the legal limits on cutting safeguards for potential trafficking victims and could affect how the scheme operates going forward.
Frequently asked questions
Who brought the legal challenge?
The challenge was brought by five small boat asylum seekers earmarked for return to France, four from Eritrea and one from Sudan, according to the Guardian.
What did the court decide?
A High Court judge ruled that the home secretary's decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims was unlawful.
What change was at issue?
A change in guidance on the 'one in, one out' scheme meant that people denied trafficking protections no longer had the right to ask for that decision to be reconsidered.