The Eritrean man wins a block on the withdrawal of France in the context of the “ “, one ” agreement

An Eritrean man who arrived in the United Kingdom by Petit Bateau won a last-minute legal complaint to temporarily block his dismissal in France.

The 25-year-old was to be returned Wednesday as part of the return pilot program “One in, one out” agreed in July between the United Kingdom and France.

In the first legal challenge against the agreement, before the High Court of London, his lawyers argued that he needed more time to present evidence that he could have been the victim of modern slavery – and the decision to withdraw it had been precipitated.

The Secretary of Sciences Liz Kendall told the BBC that the decision was “an interim judgment on an individual” who would not stop the agreement.

“This will not prevent this really important affair from moving forward, an agreement that says that if you come illegally to this country, you can and you will be expelled,” said Kendall.

She said the ministers had never claimed that the agreement would be “a miracle solution to tackle all the problems”, but insisted that the interior secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was determined to ensure that he was working.

The injunction raises serious questions as to whether the other migrants allocated to the flights will use the same reasons to delay or block their withdrawal.

The lawyers of the Ministry of the Interior had argued that he could have claimed asylum in France. They added that the delay in his departure could encourage others allocated to return flights this week to make similar complaints and undermine the public interest to dissuade the sailing of small deadly boats.

But during the hearing, it appeared that if the officials of the interior secretary had rejected his assertion that he was the victim of slavery, they had also declared in a letter today that he had the right to make new performances – and they did not expect him to do this from France.

Judge Sheldon, who rejected the affirmation of the man according to which he was left homeless and homeless in France, said that he should nevertheless temporarily block the departure of man in the light of this development.

“There is a serious problem to judge concerning the traffic request and whether the Secretary of State has exercised his investigation functions or not in a legal manner,” he said.

“If there was a reasonable suspicion that it had been tampered with – and that does not mean trafficking or coming from France – this would be equivalent to a statutory bar for withdrawal for at least a short period of time.”

The judge said that man’s lawyers should do everything possible to make other representations within 14 days, so that his case could be finalized during a future hearing.

An interior ministry spokesman told the BBC that the government expected the first yields to occur imminently and that the provisional decision would not prevent the delivery of wider policy.

But Danny Shaw, a former home office advisor, said the government seemed to have chosen people for the move that had “very recently arrived on small boats in the United Kingdom and because of this, there was not much time to investigate the history of these people”.

Shaw said that that was what had happened in the case of the Eritrean man, in which the judge judged that he needed 14 days to investigate if he had been the victim of the trafficking.

Imogen Townley, lawyer for Wilson LLP who represented asylum seekers, said that there was a fairly arbitrary and chaotic approach to select people arriving on small boats “.

She said that even if she accepted the legal allegations that withdraw the moves would be frustrating for the government, it was worth having a regular procedure and a fair system “.

“It is not realistic to think that individuals taken in the program have no individual circumstances (preventing their withdrawal),” said Townley.

She said that she did not think that the agreement on British France had been educated because there was no “global problem” with the design of the program.

Kemi Badenoch responded to the news of the injunction with “We have told you”.

Addressing LBC, the conservative chief called for “a few difficult laws” and declared “we essentially transform our country into refuge for anyone can even have the slightest misfortune in any other country”.

The chief of the reform, Nigel Farage, said that even if the policy worked, this would not lead to the decline in migration numbers like “one in one, one, and with another, always means one for all those who cross the chain”.

The documents recorded at the High Court show that the man, who cannot be appointed for legal reasons, left Ethiopia for Europe two years ago, arriving in Italy in April 2025.

A month later, he left for France where he was assisted by charitable organizations, including the Red Cross, before his mother pays $ 1,400 (£ 1,024) to the smugglers for his channel to cross the United Kingdom.

Until now, more than 30,000 people have crossed the chain in small boats this year.

This is the earliest point of a calendar year that this figure was adopted since the data on the passages were reported for the first time in 2018.

The program “One in, One Out” was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take over the migrants who had gone to the United Kingdom in a small boat and had their asylum complaints withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the United Kingdom would accept a person with a protection case as a refugee who has not tried to cross the chain.

No one has yet been deleted as part of the program. The first yields in France were to start from Tuesday.

During the last fortnight, some migrants detained in immigration moving centers received letters that said they would be placed on a flight planned in France, starting from Heathrow Airport for Paris at 9 a.m. this morning.

However, a number of sources have told the BBC that some of the potential passengers had been informed that their departure would be deferred, because other representations concerning their cases had been made.

Questioned by journalists – before the High Court’s decision – if the program was a “ruin”, a government spokesperson said “no”.

They added that the government was “confident in the legal basis of this pilot, we have taken measures to ensure that it is in accordance with national and international law; as for any policy, we are ready to meet any legal examination that occurs”.

It is likely to revive the discussion on the role of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been a lightning rod for political law since the failing Rwanda plan of the previous government.

The conservatives will define our position on the CECH at their conference next month, with a large expectation that they will come from the side of withdrawal.

Sir Keir said it was not something that was ready to do, so pressure will be exerted so that his government shows that they can operate their return regime.