An Eritrean man can be deported to France under the government’s ‘one in, one out’ scheme, a judge has ruled.

It’s the second similar case to come before the High Court this week.

In the first, separate case, another man’s deportation was temporarily blocked. Whereas, the government has won the right to return the man at the centre of this legal challenge to France.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is from Eritrea and arrived in the UK last month after crossing the English Channel on a small boat. He was allegedly forced to flee his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription, and passed through Ethiopia, South Sudan, Libya and France, before entering the UK.

Lawyers acting for the migrant in today’s case said he is due to be deported at 6.15am on Friday morning, but argued he had a “number of different medical needs” and that he has been a “victim of trafficking”.

Sonaili Naik KC, representing the migrant, also told the High Court that her client’s case had been rushed.

She said: “They have just simply expedited a decision, for the purposes of trying to rush to maintain a removal.”

The judge who ruled on this case was also the one who issued the temporary block preventing the other migrant from being deported on Tuesday night, in a move the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood called “intolerable” and vowed to “fight”.

Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling in that case led to the Home Office revising its policy on reconsidering modern slavery decisions, so that anyone removed to a safe country who wants to appeal against a National Referral Mechanism (NRM) decision – which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking – will now be unable to do so.

Instead, they can now appeal via judicial review from another country, such as France.

This then change came to play a role in this separate case today.

Ms Naik told the High Court: “The secretary of state [Ms Mahmood] has today come to this court to say, without notice to the claimant, that the procedures in France are fine, it is all safe, no problems, the trafficking claims will be dealt with.

“Our prima facie case is that the secretary of state needs assurances from France that that is the case, that non-French nationals trafficked in Libya will have access to the NRM there.”

But Sian Reeves, for the Home Office, responded that there was “no arguable public law error” in the way Ms Mahmood altered the policy, given that “she had ample evidence”.

The government lawyer added that there was “no serious issue to be tried” as the migrant’s alleged “trafficking claim can be investigated in France”. She insisted to the court that his deportation could go ahead, as his “rights are protected” there.

Mr Sheldon ruled this evening that he agreed with government lawyers that there was “no serious issue to be tried in this case”.

He added that there is “significant public interest in favour of the claimant’s removal”.

The High Court judge also said the migrant had given two very different accounts of being trafficked, meaning that “his credibility was severely damaged” and his allegations “could not reasonably be believed”.

Mr Sheldon concluded that the Home Office had “sufficient information” to deport the man and that it was “reasonable” to conclude that “further information would not make any material difference”.

Read more:
How does the UK-France migrants deal work?

Has anybody been successfully deported under the scheme yet?

Yes. Earlier in the day, a man who illegally crossed the English Channel last month became the first person to be deported under the terms of the government’s “one in, one out” migrant return deal with France.

The Home Office confirmed the man was sent back to France on a commercial flight at 6.15am this morning.

His departure follows efforts to deport an Eritrean man on Wednesday morning being blocked the night before by Mr Sheldon.

The department has said further deportation flights are due later this week and into next week.

The UK-France deal was signed in July and saw the first migrants detained in the UK to await deportation in August.

It allows the UK to send back a migrant who crosses the Channel illegally in exchange for accepting the same number of migrants in France who have a valid asylum claim.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.

But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.

There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.

Trump state visit live – read the latest

But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.

Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.

Sir Keir and Mr Trump have already met several times, most recently at The Donald’s golf courses in Scotland in late July and, before that, memorably at the White House in February.

It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.

And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.

From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?

A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents

Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.

Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.

Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.

First, the PM was forced to sack his vital link between Downing Street and the Oval Office, Lord Mandelson, over his friendship with Epstein.

Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.

And third, in a video-link to the “Unite the Kingdom” march in London last weekend, one-time Trump ally Elon Musk called for a dissolution of parliament and a change of government and appeared to encourage violent protest.

Churchill and FDR

Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.

It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.

Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.

The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.

Churchill and Truman

After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.

The speech was introduced by president Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.

These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.

Eden and Eisenhower

But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.

Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.

Macmillan and JFK

But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.

They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.

The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.

The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by Supermac’s demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.

Wilson and LBJ

After JFK, the so-called special relationship cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.

Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”

Thatcher and Reagan

And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.

Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher’s allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands War. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.

But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.

They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.

Blair and Bush

Camp David was also where, in 2001, Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.

The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.

And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”

Cameron and Obama

Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.

They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.

But not everything went well.

The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.

Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.

The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.

Good luck, as they say, with that.

Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.

For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?

Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.

London’s mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has for the first time described the situation in Gaza as a “genocide”, becoming the most senior Labour figure to contradict the government’s official position.

Earlier this week, a UN Commission said a genocide was taking place in Gaza – something repeatedly denied by Israel.

Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer has been under pressure to raise Israel’s bombardment of the territory with Donald Trump during his state visit to the UK.

The prime minister is due to have discussions with the president today, but reports suggest he will delay formally recognising a Palestinian state until this weekend, after Mr Trump has left Britain.

It is claimed the government wants to avoid the issue dominating a news conference the two men plan to hold, according to The Times.

The prime minister has found himself at odds with the US administration over the move, which is opposed to official recognition of Palestine.

The mayor of London, who has engaged in a long-running spat with Mr Trump, has added to the political tension by contradicting official Labour policy at a people’s question time event on Wednesday.

“I think it’s inescapable to draw the conclusion in Gaza we are seeing before our very eyes a genocide,” said Sir Sadiq.

Sir Keir has previously pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood ahead of next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York if Israel does not meet a series of conditions to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Other nations, including France, Australia and Canada, have said they plan to take the same step at the UN gathering.

Explainer: What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?

The UK has consistently argued that the issue of whether Israel has committed genocide was a matter for the courts. Israel is fighting a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in which the country is accused of genocide.

But some opposition leaders, including Zack Polanski for the Green Party, and the Liberal Democrats’ Sir Ed Davey have specifically referred to the situation in Gaza as genocide.

Read more from Sky News:
Watch: Israel’s Gaza City offensive
MPs denied entry into West Bank

On Tuesday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory released a report, claiming: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza”.

It said Israel’s actions meet the criteria set down for defining a genocide.

The UK government has said its official position was it “has not concluded that Israel is acting with that [genocidal] intent“.

Israel is currently undertaking a major ground offensive in Gaza, with thousands forced to flee from Gaza City in recent days.