Labour's 'one in, one out' asylum policy faces High Court challenge

The Labour government’s ‘one in, one out’ migrant policy faces a major legal challenge in the High Court for violating human rights laws.

The court has heard that the Home Office’s decision to ban modern slavery appeals is a violation of human rights laws.

Previously, it was the case that if the Home Office rejected a migrant’s human trafficking claims, they could then ask for a review of the decision. Crucially, the appeals would typically overturn the rejection — recognising the migrant as a victim of modern slavery — in almost 80% of cases.

However, home secretary Shabana Mahmood, changed the modern slavery guidance in September 2025. She removed the right for a migrant to appeal the Home Office’s decision before they’re deported. Instead, Mahmood’s department argues that they can apply for help in France.

Should the High Court case be successful, it would massively impede the speed at which Mahmood can deport people under the ‘one in, one out’ scheme.

Asylum policy and ‘institutional disregard’ for evidence

Six migrants, all of whom have made human trafficking claims in the UK, brought the case to the High Court, the Independent reported. All six had previously arrived in the UK on small boats over the course of 2025.

The Home Office acknowledged one individual, known as AYA, as a victim of modern slavery. A last-minute court injunction blocked the deportation of another claimant, known as EXR.

However, as a result of the new asylum policy, three of the six were removed to France.

The claimants’ barrister, Sam Grodzinski KC, argued before the court that the UK system would only be lawful if it “identifies the paramount importance of identifying victims [of trafficking] correctly”.

However, Mahmood’s new policy shows an “institutional disregard of potentially relevant evidence”. As such, it fails to conform to either the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking (ECAT) or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Claims should be ‘properly investigated’

Grodzinski highlighted that, according to 2025 government data, the overwhelming majority of appeals recognise migrants as victims of trafficking. He told the presiding judge, Justice Sheldon:

Individuals have a fundamental right under ECAT to have their claims properly investigated.

The barrister argued that the Home Office questions many migrants within hours after they arrive on small boats. Often, they’re confused and disoriented, and cannot understand the questions they’re being asked. As such, it’s unsurprising that they don’t communicate their history of human trafficking immediately.

Grodzinski added:

Victim identification is a process that takes time; it can’t be done speedily, not if it is to be done properly.

In its defence, the Home Office stated that it has made provisions for “exceptional circumstances” in which it might reconsider modern slavery rulings.

However, Grodzinski highlighted that these circumstances aren’t actually communicated to caseworkers. Likewise, such exceptional challenges usually only take place when the Home Office is threatened with significant legal action.

Age-disputed asylum seekers

The Home Office also argued that deportees can apply for support as victims of trafficking in France.

This latter point typifies the modern Labour attitude to asylum seekers in a nutshell. Figuring out whether the UK has an obligation to a trafficking victim might impede the ability to deport them. As such, the government simply chooses to ignore crucial steps in modern slavery decisions.

In a similar case, the Home Office recently landed itself in hot water over its failure to accurately determine whether migrant detainees were children.

Using freedom of information requests to local authority children’s services, the Independent Humans for Rights Network found that, in the seven months since ‘One in, one out’ began last September, the Home Office has detained 76 ‘age-disputed’ children.

The Home Office treats these individuals as adults for the purposes of detention and deportation. However, social workers later determine them to be children. Twenty-six of the ‘age-disputed’ group had either been reassessed as children by Social Services or were in the process of being, the Guardian wrote.

Meanwhile, 11 kids were waiting for an age assessment. The Home Office had already forcibly deported 13 to France. Damningly, one child was confirmed to be a minor after being forcibly deported.

Home Office closes its eyes and covers its ears

Just as in the modern slavery case, the Home Office closes its eyes and covers its ears, and pretends it heard nothing. Then, it lets France sort out its mess.

In the name of expediency, Labour has willfully ignored its duty to investigate human rights claims. However, our government doesn’t get to claim ignorance after removing a migrant’s right to appeal.

Mahmood and her cronies knew full well what they were doing. They simply thought they could get away with it.

Featured image via the Canary