HIGH COURT RULES UK TRAFFICKING-GUIDANCE CHANGE UNLAWFUL

London's High Court ruled that the British government acted unlawfully when it removed the right of some asylum seekers to challenge negative trafficking decisions before removal to France, according to Reuters. The ruling affects Home Office guidance linked to the UK-France "one in, one out" migration deal, which allows some people arriving in Britain by small boat to be returned to France while Britain accepts an equivalent number of eligible asylum seekers from France.

Reuters reported that the guidance change was made in September 2025 and was intended to reduce legal barriers to removals under the agreement. The change prevented affected asylum seekers from challenging negative trafficking decisions before being sent back, even when they claimed to have been victims of trafficking or exploitation.

The legal challenge was brought by five asylum seekers, according to Reuters and The Guardian. The Guardian reported that the claimants included four people from Eritrea and one from Sudan, and that the challenge focused on whether the Home Office's altered process gave enough protection to people who said they had been trafficked during their journeys.

Judge Clive Sheldon ruled that the changes denied asylum seekers access to evidence needed for fair decision-making, according to Reuters. Reuters reported that the judge cited figures showing that 79% of initial negative trafficking decisions were overturned on review in 2025, a statistic used by the court to assess the importance of review rights before removal.

The Guardian reported that the court found the amended decision-making process inadequate and not robust in parts of the five cases. The court did not accept every argument brought by the claimants, according to The Guardian, but all five were granted permission to continue their legal cases.

The ruling is a setback for the Home Office's attempt to speed up returns under the UK-France arrangement. Reuters reported that the government plans to appeal, while lawyers for the asylum seekers said the decision showed that vulnerable people could have been removed before their trafficking claims were properly assessed.

The case also raises a broader legal question about how migration-control agreements interact with trafficking protections. Under the ruling reported by Reuters, the government cannot treat removal speed as a reason to bypass procedures that the court considered necessary for fair review of trafficking claims.

The immediate question is whether the Home Office wins permission to appeal and whether removals under the "one in, one out" scheme are delayed or altered while the legal process continues. Until the appeal is resolved or new guidance is issued, the ruling leaves a major part of the government's small-boat returns policy under legal pressure.

Fact-check date: 10 July 2026
Article type: News
Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, London High Court reporting