In a move that will likely surprise no one except perhaps the Home Office, a high court judge has ordered the department to bring back to the UK an alleged victim of trafficking who was forcibly removed to France under the 'one in one out' scheme. It's the first ruling of its kind, and it could mean more people affected by the policy get to come back - because apparently, sending vulnerable people away and hoping for the best isn't a solid legal strategy.

Mr Justice Sheldon has quashed the Home Office's policy change that refused asylum seekers the right to have their trafficking claims reconsidered after an initial rejection. 'I have quashed it so that it is as if it never happened,' he said, which is probably the closest thing to a magic eraser the legal system offers.

The 'one in one out' policy forcibly removes some people who cross the Channel in small boats in exchange for bringing a similar number from northern France legally to the UK. The government hopes this will deter small boat crossings. They have reduced by more than 40% compared with this time last year - though in the last week more than 1,000 people have arrived, and on Thursday four people died attempting the journey. So, mixed results, really.

Asylum seekers returned to France now have a right to have trafficking cases that were initially rejected reconsidered. However, it's unclear how this will work in practice, because many of those forcibly removed to France who previously claimed trafficking have now disappeared. Some have gone underground after being threatened by smugglers in northern France. Others have fled France after being threatened with removal to their home country or to another EU country where they were previously fingerprinted on their journey seeking asylum. It's almost as if the policy created more problems than it solved.

The man at the center of this ruling was forcibly returned to France on 27 November 2025. Reasonable grounds have been identified that he is a victim of trafficking. He is an asylum seeker from Sudan, a survivor of torture, and one of five who challenged the Home Secretary's policy change. A second asylum seeker sent to France who was also involved in the legal challenge will have his trafficking case reconsidered in France, and depending on the outcome, he too may be brought back to the UK. The high court has granted both the Home Office and the asylum seekers permission to appeal on various points, because nothing says 'justice' like endless legal ping-pong.

Emily Soothill of Deighton Pierce Glynn welcomed the judge's decision, saying: 'Our client is a vulnerable victim of trafficking and torture who has suffered significantly as a result of the Home Office's unlawful decision-making. We are delighted that the court has rightly recognised that his removal to France was unlawful and that he must therefore be brought back to the UK.' She called it 'a highly significant decision - for our client, for other victims of trafficking who may have been unlawfully removed to France, and for ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.'

Elizabeth Cole, a solicitor at Duncan Lewis, also welcomed the decision. Her asylum seeker client in France, who took part in the legal challenge, now has a right to reconsideration. She said: 'The court's decision calls into question the lawfulness of previous removals under the UK-France treaty where a negative reasonable grounds decision was made or reconsideration was denied. We hope that this will allow a broader cohort of cases who have been removed to France unlawfully under the treaty to obtain justice and potentially return to the UK.'

Home Office sources say they are carefully considering the judgment, including their options for appeal. Because when the courts tell you you're wrong, the natural response is to appeal, not to reflect on the human cost of your policies.