Mahmood’s flagship one-in-one-out migrant deal with France put in jeopardy by High Court challenge
Shabana Mahmood’s flagship immigration deal with France has been put in jeopardy after the Supreme Court ruled some deportations were illegal.
Six immigrants who claim to be victims of human trafficking are challenging the lawfulness of their treatment; At least three have already been deported to France under Labour’s flagship plan.
If they are successful, it will significantly impact the home secretary’s ability to deport large numbers of people under the much-appreciated deal that sees migrants deported from the UK in exchange for asylum seekers from France.
Ms Mahmood changed modern slavery regulations last September to speed up deportations under the scheme. Under previous guidance, migrants whose trafficking allegations were rejected by Home Office officials could apply for a review of the decision before being deported. Now, if they want to appeal the decision, they must take legal action from the country from which they were deported.
Claimants’ barrister Sam Grodzinski KC told the Supreme Court that Ms Mahmood’s decision to block modern slavery appeals was unlawful and breached human rights laws.
The judge told Sheldon that the legal system in the UK was “one that recognizes the enormous importance of identifying victims”. [of trafficking] TRUE”.
Mr Grodzinski said the new policy amounted to “institutional disregard of potentially relevant evidence”. He said this was not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Convention against Trafficking in Persons (ECAT).
Mr Grodzinski told the court: “Individuals have a fundamental right to have their claims investigated appropriately under ECAT.”
It said government data showed that almost four fifths of requests to reconsider original modern slavery decisions in 2025 were overturned in favor of the claimant.
Mr. Grodzinski said many migrants who were interrogated by Home Office officials in small boats within a few hours did not immediately disclose their trafficking history, often out of confusion about what they were being asked. “Victim identification is a time-consuming process, if it has to be done correctly it cannot be done quickly,” he added.
The court heard all six claimants arrived in the UK on small boats in 2025 and some were taken to France under a “one in, one out” scheme.
All six applicants had sought asylum and made allegations of human trafficking. The claims of some were rejected by the Home Office, but one person, known as AYA, was recognized as a victim of modern slavery and was released from custody.
Another, known as EXR, was stopped from being sent to France by court order and was released from custody.
The Home Office argued there was a provision for modern slavery decisions to be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances, but Mr Grodzinski told the court this only happened when legal action was threatened and the provision was not included in the guidance for caseworkers.
He added that France has provisions to support victims of human trafficking.
