High Court rules UK acted unlawfully over migrant removals linked to France deal
The UK government acted unlawfully by preventing some asylum seekers from challenging decisions relating to modern slavery and trafficking claims before removal, the High Court has ruled.
The case focused on the government’s migration agreement with France, which allows migrants arriving in the UK by small boats to be returned to France while some approved asylum seekers are transferred to Britain through legal routes.
A Home Office policy introduced in September 2025 removed the ability for certain asylum seekers facing removal to challenge rejected trafficking victim claims before they were sent back. The court found that this approach failed to allow important evidence to be properly considered and did not provide a fair decision-making process.
The legal challenge was brought by five asylum seekers who argued they had not been given a proper opportunity to present evidence supporting their claims.
The court heard that information relating to trafficking and exploitation cases can often come to light after an initial decision has been made, including medical evidence and other supporting material. This means early assessments may not always show the full circumstances of an individual’s case.
Judge Clive Sheldon said concerns existed over the accuracy of initial decisions, pointing to cases where trafficking-related refusals were later overturned after further review.
The ruling does not cancel the UK-France migration agreement, but it creates further difficulties for the government’s plans to quickly remove people arriving illegally by small boats.
The government has said it will appeal the decision, arguing that stronger border controls are necessary to prevent dangerous Channel crossings and tackle people-smuggling gangs.
Campaigners welcomed the ruling, saying the previous policy risked removing protections from genuine victims of trafficking and exploitation.
The decision is the latest legal challenge facing the government as it attempts to balance tougher immigration enforcement with its obligations to protect vulnerable people.
