The Eritrean man wins the block to remove the “one in”, one of the transactions “

An Eritrean man who came to the UK on a small boat won a legal statement at the last minute to temporarily block his removal to France.

A 25-year-old man was supposed to return on Wednesday as part of “One In”, which returns the pilot scheme coordinated in July between the UK and France.

In the first legal task against the deal, in the Supreme Court in London, his lawyers claimed that he needed more time to present evidence that he may have been a victim of modern slavery – and the decision to remove it was made.

Science Secretary Liz Kendal said the BBC that the ruling was a “temporary decision on one person” that would not stop the deal.

“It doesn’t stop this really important deal to go ahead, a deal that says if you come to this country illegally, you can also deport you,” Kendal said.

She said the ministers never claimed that the deal would be a “silver bullet to solve all problems”, but insisted that Shaban’s Interior Minister Mahmoud was determined to make sure that she had worked.

The ruling raises serious questions about whether other migrants will be allocated to flights, use the same grounds to detain or block their removal.

The lawyers at the Ministry of Internal Affairs claimed that he could demand asylum in France. They added that the delay of its departure could stimulate others allocated on this week to make similar claims, and undermine the society’s interest in deterrent to the deadly intersections of small boats.

But during the hearings it turned out that while his own internal affairs officials rejected his statement that he had been a victim of slavery, they also stated that he had the right to make further performances today – and they did not expect it to do it from France.

Mr. The Justice of Sheldon, who rejected a person’s statement that he would remain homeless and impoverished in France, said that he would still have to temporarily block the departure of the person in the light of this development.

“There is a serious question that needs to be judged in connection with the requirement of trafficking in human beings and whether the state secretaries do not fulfill its investigative duties,” he said.

“If there was a reasoned suspicion that it was traded – and it does not mean that they trade in France or France – it would lead to a statutory bar to remove at least a short period of time.”

The judge said that men’s lawyers should do whatever you can do next to make further submission within 14 days so that his case could be finalized at the future hearing.

The press secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs told the BBC that the government expected that the first profit will take place quickly and that the temporary ruling will not prevent broad policy.

But Imogen Townley, lawyer of Wilson LLP, who represented asylum seekers, said it seemed “a rather arbitrary and chaotic approach to choosing people arriving on small boats.”

She said that when she accepted the legal requirements that retain the removal, it would be unpleasant for the government, “it is worth having a proper process and a fair system.”

“It is not realistic to think that people who have fallen into this scheme do not have individual circumstances (preventing their removal),” Tauli said.

She said she didn’t think the UK’s transaction was secured because there was no “common problem” in the design of the scheme.

Kemi Badenoch responded to the news of the ban “We told you so”.

Speaking to the LBC, the conservative leader called for “some harsh laws” and said, “We basically turn our country into asylum for those who can have even the least misfortune in any other country.”

Nigel Parazhaz’s reform leader stated that even if the policy worked, it would not lead to less migration as “one, but with the other, it still means plus one for anyone who crosses the channel.”

The documents registered in the Supreme Court show that a person who cannot be called for legal reasons left Ethiopia to Europe two years ago, arriving in Italy in April 2025.

A month later, he left for France, where he was assisted by charity organizations, including the Red Cross, before his mother paid $ 1400 (1024 pounds) smuggler for the transition of the canal to the UK.

This year, more than 30,000 people crossed the channel with small boats.

This is the earliest moment in the calendar year this figure was transferred as the intersection data was first reported in 2018.

The “one” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starr and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

According to the treaty, France agreed to return the migrants who traveled to the UK on a small boat and made a statement of asylum, refusing or announced inadmissible.

For each person who returned to France, the UK would have taken anyone with a matter for the defense as a refugee who did not try to cross the channel.

No one has been removed as part of the scheme. The first return to France was expected to begin on Tuesday.

Over the past two weeks, some migrants conducted at immigration removal centers have received letters saying that they will be put on the planned Air France flight that went from Heathrow Airport to Paris at 9am this morning.

However, a number of sources reported the BBC that some potential passengers were told that their departure would be delayed because further ideas were made about their affairs.

Asked by the reporters – before the ruling of the Supreme Court – if this scheme was “broken”, the government’s press -secretary answered “no”.

They added that the government was “confident in a legal basis for this pilot, we took measures to make sure that it corresponds to internal and international law; as in any policy, we are ready to respond to any legal control.”

This will probably redirect a discussion on the role of the European Human Rights Convention, which has become a lightning rod for political law since the failed Plan of the previous government.

Conservatives will set their position on Echr at their conference next month, with great expectation that they will go to the side of removal.

Sir Keir said it was not what he is ready to do, so his government would be to show that they could force the return scheme.