Home Office to appeal temporary block on man’s deportation under ‘one in, one out’ plan

Published

2 hours ago

September 17, 2025

admin

The Home Office will appeal against the High Court’s decision to temporarily block the deportation of an Eritrean man to France under the government’s “one in, one out” scheme, Shabana Mahmood has confirmed.

Speaking for the first time since the court’s decision on Tuesday, the new home secretary said: “Last minute attempts to frustrate a removal are intolerable, and I will fight them at every step.”

Ms Mahmood added that she will “fight to end vexatious, last-minute claims” and “robustly defend the British public’s priorities”.

Yesterday evening, the High Court granted an Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, a “short period of interim relief” ahead of his deportation to France scheduled for a 9am flight this morning.

Lawyers acting on the man’s behalf said the case “concerns a trafficking claim” and her client, who alleges he has a gunshot wound in his leg, claims he is vulnerable and faces a risk of “destitution” in France.

The Home Office defended the case, saying it was reasonable to expect the man to claim asylum in France.

Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that while there did not appear to be a “real risk” the man would be destitute in France, the trafficking claim required further interrogation.

The man would have been the first person to be returned to France under the terms of the UK-France deal, which was signed in July and led to the first people being detained after crossing the Channel in August.

In a statement, Ms Mahmood added: “Migrants suddenly deciding they are a modern slave on the eve of their removal, having never made such a claim before, make a mockery of our laws and this country’s generosity.

“I will do whatever it takes to secure our border.”

She has also announced she will review the Modern Slavery Act to see where it is currently open to misuse.

The Home Office has confirmed the temporary block on the man’s deportation will be challenged in the courts, and that lawyers acting for the man have 14 days to provide proof for their claim that he has been trafficked to the UK.

It also insisted that the first deportation flight under the UK-France migrants returns deal will still take place this week.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch was quick to criticise the government over the ruling on Tuesday, saying: “We told you so”.

Responding to Ms Mahmood’s comments, the Tories’ Chris Philp said the home secretary “is reacting in panic to the collapse of her gimmick returns deal”.

The shadow home secretary added: “No one is fooled by tough talk from Labour. They will never do the hard work needed to tackle the lawfare that blocks removals.

“The truth is, Labour is run by human rights lawyers – Keir Starmer and Lord Hermer – who have always sided with open borders activists over security and control.”

Mr Philp added that the “weak government will continue to preside over borders chaos”.

Reform UK has repeatedly criticised the policy and has also hit back at the home secretary following her statement.

Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy, said: “These are empty words from a home secretary who is out of her depth.

“Without a total legal reset, including leaving the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] and disapplying international treaties like the 1951 Refugee Convention, activist lawyers will continue abusing the legal system to prevent deportations.”

What is the scheme?

The pilot scheme was announced to much fanfare in July, after French President Emmanuel Macron made a state visit to the UK.

Sir Keir Starmer had hoped the agreement – which would see the UK send asylum seekers who have crossed the Channel back to France in exchange for legal migrants with links to Britain – would prove more resilient to court challenges than the Tories’ Rwanda plan.

He wants the number of migrants being returned to France to gradually increase over the course of the scheme, to deter them from coming in small boats.

The pilot came into force last month and is in place until June 2026.

Politics

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system’s controversial not proven verdict

Published

46 seconds ago

September 17, 2025

admin

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system's controversial not proven verdict

MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.

The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.

The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.

Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.

“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.

“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.

“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”

Not proven verdict

Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.

Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.

Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.

Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.

Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.

In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.

And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.

Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.

Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.

She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.

“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”

VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.

Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.

Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.

The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.

Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.

“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”

Read more from Sky News:
Why next year’s Scottish elections could get messy

The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.

Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.

The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.

They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.

MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.

“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.

“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.

“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”