Judge ‘erred’ in blocking migrant’s removal to France, Court of Appeal told

A High Court judge “erred” in granting an Eritrean man a temporary block on his removal to France, the Court of Appeal has been told.

Last week,  Mr Justice Sheldon granted the man at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The unnamed man had been due to be removed to France at 9am on September 17, under the arrangement where the UK will send back to France asylum seekers who have crossed the Channel, in exchange for those who apply and are approved to come to Britain.

On Tuesday, lawyers for the Home Office made a bid at the Court of Appeal to challenge the ruling.

In written submissions, Kate Grange KC, representing the Home Office, said:  “The Secretary of State for the Home Department contends that the judge erred when he determined that interim relief was appropriate.”

She added: “This case raises an issue of compelling public importance given the significance of the policy of removing to France under the treaty and the acute need to prevent and deter small boat journeys across the English Channel.

“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.”

Ms Grange also told the Court of Appeal that the judge’s “decision affects immediate operational actions concerning removal from the UK, which has already needed to be deferred”.

She continued in written submissions: “There is a high risk that other individuals subject to removal decisions will bring similar applications for interim relief, which will have a significant detrimental impact on the public interest in timely removals.”

Ms Grange further said there was “no justification for delaying removal for an indefinite period in excess of 14 days” to allow the man to obtain medical evidence.

Speaking in court on Tuesday, Ms Grange said the man could be “protected” in France if he was a victim of trafficking, and that he could bring a legal challenge against the trafficking decision from France.

In his ruling last Tuesday, Mr Justice Sheldon said: “It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.”

Sonali Naik KC, representing the man, had told the court he claimed he had been a trafficking victim, and alleges he is vulnerable.

In written submissions, Ms Naik told the court on Tuesday that the “judge clearly took account of the material factors and gave proper reasons for them in the context of this highly expedited hearing”.

She added: “This case should be considered in its own context and on its own facts, and does not have wider significance for others whom the appellant may seek to remove pursuant to the treaty she had entered into with France.

“This court should not interfere with the judge’s assessment unless it is plainly wrong and the appellant cannot point to any such basis on the material that was before the court or at all.”

Ms Naik also 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”.

Ministers agreed the pilot scheme with the French government in July as part of efforts to deter the record number of arrivals by small boat crossings so far this year.

At least two asylum seekers have been removed from the country under the scheme, including a second Eritrean man who was deported on a flight from Heathrow to Paris early on Friday after losing a High Court bid on Thursday to halt his removal.

The hearing before Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Lewis, and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing is due to conclude later on Tuesday.