Sheldon's Hammer: High Court Rules Mahmood's 'One In, One Out' Asylum Protections Unlawful

A recent High Court ruling has delivered a significant blow to the British home secretary’s attempts to expedite asylum returns, declaring unlawful a decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims. Mr Justice Sheldon found that Shabana Mahmood’s amendment to trafficking guidance, specifically removing the right to reconsider an initial negative decision on trafficking protection, was not robust and effective.

The legal challenge was mounted by five asylum seekers – four from Eritrea and one from Sudan – all earmarked for return to France under the controversial “one in, one out” scheme. This policy, which commenced last August, mandates the forced return of one small boat arrival to France for every asylum seeker in France who has not attempted a Channel crossing. Since its inception, more than 1,000 individuals are likely to have been removed, with many subsequently disappearing. Hundreds more are currently held in UK detention centres awaiting similar returns.

Mr Justice Sheldon’s lengthy judgment, published on a Friday morning, found that the home secretary’s decision made a “real difference” in two of the asylum seekers’ cases. This underscores the critical impact of procedural safeguards, especially for individuals who may have endured harrowing journeys, such as the Eritrean man who described being held in an underground detention facility in Libya, where he was kidnapped and beaten. The court explicitly granted all five asylum seekers permission to proceed with their legal claims.

This ruling carries substantial implications. It signals a judicial check on executive power, affirming that the pursuit of expedited returns cannot override fundamental legal protections for vulnerable individuals. The judgment highlights the inherent risks for many small boat arrivals, particularly those who have passed through regions like Libya, who are often potential victims of trafficking. The home secretary's argument that France, as a signatory to treaties protecting trafficking victims, could adequately address these cases was effectively dismantled by evidence presented to the court, which indicated that non-French victims or those not trafficked within France do not receive the same level of protection there as they would in the UK.

The decision by Mr Justice Sheldon, stating that such a decision-making process “cannot be regarded as robust and effective,” reinforces the principle that procedural integrity is paramount when dealing with asylum claims and trafficking vulnerabilities. It demands a re-evaluation of the ‘one in, one out’ scheme’s operational framework, ensuring that the urgency of returns does not inadvertently expose individuals to further harm or deny them due process. The ruling effectively compels the Home Office to reinstate the right for reconsideration of trafficking decisions, a critical safeguard for individuals whose lives may depend on it.