UK Home Office loses bid to overturn High Court ruling blocking Eritrean migrant’s deportation under 'one-in, one-out' scheme
Court denies government permission to appeal interim relief, as crossings remain high and the policy's deterrent effect is debated
The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal a High Court ruling that temporarily blocked the deportation of an Eritrean migrant to France under the 'one-in, one-out' scheme, marking another setback for ministers pursuing the policy. The decision comes as Channel crossings toward Britain continue at elevated levels, with the year-to-date total surpassing 32,000 migrants. Government officials say the scheme is designed to deter small-boat journeys by removing a migrant to France for every person the UK accepts with a strong claim, but critics question whether it is achieving that aim. So far this year, only three people have been removed under the deal, underscoring the disconnect between policy ambitions and on-the-ground results.
The Eritrean case centered on an interim relief that allowed the individual to stay while representations were made regarding a possible claim of modern slavery. Officials had planned to deport the man to France at 9 a.m. on September 17, but Mr Justice Sheldon granted 14 days for representations. Today, lawyers for the Home Office asked the Court of Appeal to overturn that ruling, but the appeal panel—comprising Lord Justices Arnold and Lewis and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing—refused permission to hear the case with detailed reasons to follow later. The Home Secretary previously argued that the judge erred in determining that interim relief was appropriate and emphasized the public interest in deterring small-boat journeys under the treaty with France. The defence of the decision noted that the interim relief did not create a broader implication for others subject to removal under the treaty.
The Home Office had struck a pilot deal with the French government in July as part of efforts to curb a surge in arrivals by small boats. In the latest developments, at least two asylum seekers have already been removed under the scheme, including a second Eritrean man who was flown from Heathrow to Paris after losing a High Court bid on Thursday to halt his removal. Officials described the France-UK returns as an immediate deterrent and labeled the pilot a milestone, while politicians on the opposition benches argued that the policy has not produced a meaningful deterrent. Critics have argued that the returns data do not reflect a substantial impact on the broader flows across the Channel.
The cross-Channel policy has been the subject of sharp political debate. Some officials have framed the scheme as essential to managing a record level of small-boat crossings, while critics have warned that the program creates incentives for risky journeys and imposes costs on taxpayers. Shadow Home Office figures have characterized the latest return figures as insufficient and questioned whether the policy is serving as a credible deterrent.
Financially, the program is costly. Friday’s figure of 1,072 arrivals could, if sustained, cost British taxpayers as much as £43 million in a year once housing, food, healthcare, legal aid, education, and other supports are included. Local councils also participate in funding arrangements, with grants of roughly £1,200 per asylum seeker to cover incidental expenditures. The broader fiscal footprint of the asylum system remains a political flashpoint, particularly as officials note that asylum decisions can take years.
Beyond immediate removals, the government has also highlighted a voluntary departure scheme that pays up to £3,000 to failed asylum seekers who agree to leave the country. Between 2021 and 2024, the scheme attracted some 13,637 participants and cost about £40.9 million, according to official disclosures. Critics argue that even with voluntary returns, the overall pressure on housing and public services remains substantial if new claimants keep arriving.
The asylum process itself remains lengthy: in 2024, the average time to reach a decision on initial asylum applications stretched to about 413 days, meaning many new claimants remain in state support for more than a year after arrival. The ongoing delays contribute to ongoing cost pressures and political scrutiny over the UK’s approach to asylum policy and deportations.
Officials say they will continue to pursue the policy despite legal challenges, noting that court rulings will shape how the scheme is implemented going forward. The court’s decision to deny permission to appeal effectively leaves the High Court ruling in place for the Eritrean case, while the government considers next steps. In the larger political context, the debate over deterrence, humanitarian obligations, and fiscal costs is likely to persist as Britain navigates a difficult year for asylum policy and border management.