Judge Halts Removal of Eritrean Asylum Seeker Under UK-France Scheme
A high court judge has intervened to stop the forced removal of an Eritrean trafficking victim to France under the UK's controversial "one in, one out" asylum scheme. The decision, made by Mr Justice Sheldon, comes amid concerns that returning the individual could cause significant harm to his mental health, highlighting potential flaws in the system designed to deter Channel crossings.
Details of the Legal Challenge and Scheme
The "one in, one out" scheme, launched last summer, involves forcibly returning one asylum seeker who arrives in the UK via small boat to France in exchange for another being brought over legally. As of March 5, official figures show 370 people have been brought to the UK legally under this arrangement, while 354 have been sent back to France. Despite its aim to deter dangerous Channel crossings, thousands of asylum seekers have continued to make the journey, with 1,200 recorded this month alone.
The Eritrean asylum seeker at the center of this case, a 31-year-old man confirmed as a victim of trafficking by UK authorities after being detained and exploited by militia in Libya, arrived in the UK on August 12. He is currently held in detention and has been diagnosed with PTSD, requiring mental health treatment. Along with two others whose cases are pending, he argues that France fails to provide adequate support for trafficking victims.
Court Findings on French System Shortcomings
In his judgment, Mr Justice Sheldon made preliminary findings that individuals returned under the scheme may face difficulties accessing accommodation and healthcare in France. The judge noted that the man had previously attempted to claim asylum in France before traveling to the UK but received no support, raising a "serious risk" this would recur if he were returned.
Key concerns identified include:
- France's failure to recognize victims of trafficking who were exploited outside its borders by non-French nationals.
- Barriers to timely mental health support and accommodation for returnees.
- A "real doubt" about the man's ability to access necessary care, leading to a conclusion that he is "likely to suffer harm to his mental health if removed forcibly to France."
Elizabeth Cole of Duncan Lewis solicitors, representing the man, stated: "We are encouraged that the court has recognised shortcomings in the French system... This is an important step forward in terms of recognising the gaps and their significance for those targeted by the scheme."
Responses from Authorities
The Home Office defended the scheme, emphasizing that "modern slavery laws should protect those who have faced unimaginable suffering and not be used as a tactic for undermining our borders." They added that safeguarding assessments are conducted before removal decisions, ensuring people are treated with dignity. France's interior ministry has not yet commented on the case.
The final hearing is scheduled for April, where definitive findings will be made. This ruling underscores ongoing debates about immigration policies, human rights protections, and the effectiveness of deterrence measures in addressing asylum challenges.
