The Home Office has lost its appeal against a high court ruling granting an Eritrean asylum seeker a temporary block on being deported to France under the new “one in, one out” scheme.
In a highly unusual move, three appeal court judges rejected the home secretary’s application for permission to appeal against a high court ruling granting the man 14 days to gather further evidence in support of his trafficking claim without hearing arguments from the other side.
The ruling was made after judges heard arguments from the home secretary’s lawyers but not from lawyers representing the Eritrean asylum seeker.
The Eritrean man, who arrived in the UK on a small boat on 12 August, was due to be deported on an Air France flight to Paris last week, but Justice Sheldon delayed his removal in a high court ruling.
His lawyers had argued in the high court that he was entitled under UK trafficking rules to more time to gather evidence about his trafficking claim before being sent back to France.
Although the decision on Tuesday by the three appeal judges, Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, does not jeopardise the Home Office’s controversial “one in, one out” scheme overall, it deals a significant blow to the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood.
Under the deal, the UK can send back any migrant who crosses the Channel illegally in return for accepting the same number of migrants in France who have a valid asylum claim here.
Government lawyers put forward arguments that it was imperative to remove the Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as part of the scheme to prevent dangerous crossings. They said he could pursue his trafficking claim in France but this was rejected by the judges.
So far only three people have been removed to France under the new deal. The first people from France were due to arrive on Saturday but this has been delayed.
Kate Grange KC, for the home secretary, told the court of appeal on Tuesday that there was “considerable urgency” to make “one in, one out” work. She said the scheme was needed to break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.
Grange told the court: “Winter is coming. Over the next few weeks temperatures will drop and journeys will become more hazardous.
“We submit that the public interest in preventing and deterring these journeys could not be more serious or acute.”
Rejecting permission to appeal, Lord Justice Arnold said: “The judge made no error of law or principle making the decision he did. None of the four grounds of appeal are sufficiently arguable to have a realistic prospect of success.”
