Court orders that victim of trafficking must be brought back to the UK after his unlawful removal to France

1. In the first case of its kind, the High Court has ordered the Home Secretary to take all reasonable steps to bring DPG’s client, GIP, back from France to the UK. This order follows on from a landmark ruling earlier this month in which the Home Secretary was found to have unlawfully removed GIP from the UK and denied him the protection that he was entitled to in domestic law as a victim of human trafficking. The High Court has also ordered the quashing of the unlawful policy of denying potential victims of human trafficking the right to request reconsideration of negative trafficking decisions before removal to France under the UK-France Treaty (also known as the “one-in one-out policy”).

2. This is the first time that the Home Secretary has been ordered to bring back an individual unlawfully removed to France under the one-in one-out policy. The decision leaves open the possibility of other victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully removed to France also seeking their return to the UK.

Court findings

3. GIP is a Sudanese asylum-seeker and victim of torture and trafficking in Sudan who was one of five Lead Claimants, each of whom had been removed or threatened with removal to France under the UK-France Treaty, and who brought a systemic challenge to the removal of the right of reconsideration of negative trafficking decisions.

4. In a comprehensive judgment handed down earlier this month, the High Court reaffirmed that the UK’s obligations to identify trafficking victims cannot be diluted for administrative convenience or to facilitate removals. It confirmed that where an identification system relies on rapid decision-making and lacks extensive procedural safeguards, a meaningful reconsideration process may be essential to ensuring victims are identified correctly. The removal of the right to request reconsideration was found to be unlawful because it significantly reduced the effectiveness of the UK's trafficking identification regime, denied decision-makers access to potentially decisive evidence, and undermined the statutory purpose of protecting victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.

5. In GIP’s case, the High Court additionally found the Home Secretary’s decision-making on his trafficking claim to be fundamentally flawed.

6. Following submissions from the parties, the Court has now ordered that:

(1) the decision of 17 September 2025 to amend the Modern Slavery Act Statutory Guidance by removing the right to request reconsideration of negative trafficking decisions for those being removed to a State that is a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the European Convention on Human Rights was unlawful for the reasons set out in the judgment;

(2) the amendment to the reconsideration policy has been quashed, which means that “it is as if it never happened” and the right to request a reconsideration has been restored for all those who receive negative trafficking decisions;

(3) the decision of 19 November 2025 to remove GIP to France and his removal on 27 November 2025 were unlawful;

(4) there are reasonable grounds to believe that GIP is a victim of human trafficking on the material before the decision-maker on 3 November 2025 and 15 April 2026; and

(5) the Home Secretary must therefore take all reasonable steps to arrange for GIP’s transfer back to the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 9(4) of the UK-France Treaty.

The High Court has granted both parties permission to appeal on various points in the judgment so the case will likely proceed to a hearing before the Court of Appeal later this year. This, however, does not affect the remedies ordered by the High Court taking effect.

Emily Soothill of DPG has commented: “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. This is 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”.

Emily Soothill, David Garrick and Zubier Yazdani act for GIP instructing Sam Grodzinski KC of Blackstone Chambers, Shu Shin Luh and Grace Capel of Doughty Street Chambers and Jennifer MacLeod of Brick Court.

For press enquiries please contact: esoothill@dpglaw.co.uk