Illegal Migrants Who Beat the Home Office in Court Reveal the Real Reason They Crossed the English Channel

Labour’s one-in-one-out migrant returns agreement with France has suffered a significant setback after a group of asylum seekers successfully challenged their planned deportations in the High Court. The case has raised fresh questions about how the Government’s flagship returns scheme will operate and whether legal challenges could slow or even disrupt future removals.

The legal action was brought by several asylum seekers who argued that their planned return to France was unlawful because they had not been given a proper opportunity to challenge decisions rejecting their claims that they were victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

Court documents revealed that some of the migrants chose to come to the UK instead of remaining in France because they believed Britain would offer them a better future. One claimant, identified only as KAG, said he did not seek asylum in France because he believed asylum seekers there received poor treatment and inadequate support. He also told officials that he wanted to seek asylum in the UK so he could pursue an education and because he believed Britain was a safer place to live.

Another claimant, known as AYA, explained that he had seen people sleeping on the streets in France, which discouraged him from seeking protection there. He said he had been told that the United Kingdom was “a better country,” and that was the reason he travelled there instead.

The case centred on a recent change introduced by the Home Office, which removed the right for migrants facing deportation to ask for a second review after their initial modern slavery claim had been rejected. The Government argued that this change was necessary to prevent delays and stop people from using last-minute trafficking claims to avoid removal.

However, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that the change was unlawful. He found that important evidence, including medical reports and expert assessments, is often unavailable when an initial decision is made. Preventing people from submitting that evidence later, he said, created an unfair process that could lead to genuine victims of trafficking being wrongly denied protection.

The judge warned that decision-makers would be forced to ignore evidence that could fundamentally change the outcome of a case. He concluded that such a process could not be considered robust or effective and was therefore inconsistent with what Parliament intended.

He also noted that many trafficking victims are not immediately identified because they may struggle to explain their experiences. Language barriers, trauma, fear, and confusion can all make it difficult for people to fully describe what has happened to them during their first interview. Even when interpreters are present, important details may still be misunderstood or left out.

According to the judgment, many people give incomplete accounts of their experiences during the early stages of the asylum process, while others may not disclose any evidence of trafficking until much later. The judge pointed to official figures showing that 79% of modern slavery decisions reconsidered in 2025 resulted in a different outcome, suggesting that initial decisions are frequently overturned when additional evidence becomes available.

The ruling could create major challenges for the Home Office because the UK-France agreement operates under strict deadlines. Under the treaty, Britain generally has just 14 days to complete the paperwork required to return someone to France, and legal claims are expected to be resolved within that timeframe.

Home Office officials warned during the case that allowing migrants up to 30 days to request a reconsideration of rejected trafficking claims could seriously undermine the operation of the scheme. They argued that it would create delays that might prevent removals from taking place before the deadline expires.

Daniel Hobbs, Director General of the Migration and Borders Group, told the court that around 40% of migrants notified that they could be returned to France under the agreement had already been referred into the National Referral Mechanism, the UK’s system for identifying potential victims of modern slavery.

He warned that any additional delays caused by reconsideration requests could have a damaging impact on the pilot scheme because removals must take place within a fixed period after France accepts responsibility for the individual.

Despite the ruling, the Home Office has insisted it will continue defending its approach. A spokesperson said the Government believes last-minute modern slavery claims should not be used to block the removal of people who have entered the UK illegally.

The department said it is reforming the law to prevent what it describes as questionable last-minute claims while continuing to strengthen protections for genuine victims of trafficking. The Home Office also confirmed that the Home Secretary intends to challenge the ruling and will appeal the High Court’s decision.