Home Office loses bid to overturn court order blocking migrant's removal

The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal against a temporary injunction blocking an Eritrean man from being removed to France as part of the "one in, one out" agreement between the two countries.

Last week, the 25-year-old, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was due to be among the first people sent to France under the pilot scheme.

However, in a last-minute reprieve, the High Court in London gave him at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The government had argued the order risked undermining the new returns policy, but the Court of Appeal refused Home Office lawyers permission to appeal against that decision.

The "one in, one out" scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the UK will accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.

Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that Mr Justice Sheldon, the High Court judge that granted the last-minute order halting the removal, had made a mistake when he did so.

"The judge's decision to grant interim relief, and for such a significant period in the context of this policy, causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective," Kate Grange KC said on behalf of the Home Office.

Sonali Naik KC, who represented the asylum seeker, said the judge was "entitled to grant the order in the urgent circumstances he did, for the reasons he gave and for the period he did".

Ms Naik said the man's case "should be considered in its own context and on its own facts", adding that it did not have wider significance for others whom the government might seek to remove as part of the returns pilot scheme.

In their judgement on Tuesday, Court of Appeal judges said the lower court had been "correct to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Secretary of state was acting unlawfully" by seeking to remove the man in those circumstances.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.