In R (AYA, EXR, HRE, GIP and KAG) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1742 (Admin), the Administrative Court held that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by removing the right to seek reconsideration of negative modern slavery and trafficking decisions under the UK-France “one in, one out” returns scheme. 

The ruling did not strike down the whole arrangement, but it confirms that a fast removal process cannot lawfully remove safeguards needed to identify potential trafficking victims effectively.

This blog takes a closer look at the case, the legal reasoning behind the decision, and why the Court found that removing the reconsideration safeguard made the trafficking identification process unlawful.

What is the “one in, one out” scheme 

Under the UK–France arrangement that began in August 2025, a person who arrives by small boat can be returned to France. In exchange, the UK accepts an equivalent person from France who has not attempted the crossing and who passes security and eligibility checks.

To expedite returns, the Home Office needed to move people through the system quickly and that speed is exactly where the legal problem arose.

What was challenged

The case, R (AYA & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, was brought by five asylum seekers facing or already subject to return to France.

The target of their challenge was narrow but important. In September 2025, the Home Secretary amended the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance to remove the right to request reconsideration of a negative trafficking decision, but only where the person was being removed to a country that signs up to the main anti-trafficking treaty (ECAT) and the European Convention on Human Rights. France is one of those countries.

In practical terms, this meant that if a person facing return to France received a negative trafficking decision, they could no longer ask the Home Office to look at that decision again before removal, even if important evidence about trafficking only emerged after the first decision had been made.

Why the High Court found it unlawful

Mr Justice Sheldon’s reasoning came down to a simple idea. A system for identifying trafficking victims has to be robust and effective, and removing reconsideration made it neither.

The judge’s key points were these:

• The initial decisions are made fast. Reasonable-grounds trafficking decisions are often taken within about five days of a person arriving.
  
• Victims frequently cannot tell their story at once. Trauma, exhaustion, malnourishment, fear and language barriers mean crucial details often surface only later.
  
• The vital evidence tends to arrive late. Medical and medico-legal reports, detention-centre reports and expert evidence commonly appear after that first quick decision.
  
• The stats show reconsideration matters. The judge noted that in 2025, around 79% of reconsidered negative decisions were overturned to a positive result.

Put those together and the effect of the change was that decision-makers would disregard potentially decisive evidence simply because it arrived after the cut-off. As the judge put it, such a process could not be regarded as robust and effective, and so “could not have been within the contemplation of Parliament”.

Because the Home Secretary’s power to set these arrangements comes from the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and must be used consistently with the UK’s treaty obligations, stripping out reconsideration went beyond what the law allowed.

What the court did not find unlawful

This is where the nuance sits, and where the “whole scheme struck down” framing goes wrong.

• Most individual decisions stood. The court upheld the majority of the Home Office’s decisions treating asylum claims as inadmissible or unfounded.
• France was accepted as generally safe on some points. In one claimant’s case, refusing trafficking-victim leave was lawful because healthcare is generally available to asylum seekers in France.
• The human rights route was limited. The court held that Article 4 (the anti-slavery provision) did not assist where the trafficking happened outside the relevant country’s territory. The win rested on domestic law and ECAT, not Article 4.
• The scheme continues. The Home Office described the ruling as narrow rather than systemic and confirmed removals would carry on.

Simply put, the Home Office could not speed up removals by taking away an important safeguard designed to protect potential trafficking victims.

Practitioner Insights

Case: R (AYA & Others) v SSHD, Administrative Court (Sheldon J), judgment handed down 10 July 2026. Earlier interim relief: [2026] EWHC 552 (Admin). A related age-assessment ruling in the same cohort is R (EXR) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1568 (Admin).

The core holding. The Home Secretary’s power under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to set victim-identification arrangements must be exercised consistently with the UK’s obligations under ECAT, which the Act implements. Removing the reconsideration right rendered the identification process not “robust and effective”, and was therefore unlawful.

Multiple routes to the same result. The removal of reconsideration was also struck down as a fettering of discretion, a breach of the Padfield principle (exercising a power so as to frustrate the statute’s purpose), and an unlawful policy.

Article 4 ECHR:  note the limit. The Court held Article 4 does not bite where the trafficking occurred outside the relevant state’s territory, absent a credible suspicion of a real and immediate risk of trafficking on removal. Advisers should not over-rely on Article 4 in these removals.

Status. All five claimants were given permission to proceed. Final orders, consequential matters and permission to appeal were adjourned to a hearing later this month, and the Home Office has indicated it will appeal so treat this as a significant but not yet settled position.

Note: the Court was applying a basic legal principle: the Home Office cannot prioritise speed over a safeguard designed to identify and protect genuine victims of trafficking.

For anyone facing removal to France who may also have indicators of trafficking, the reconsideration safeguard may now be important again. However, the wider UK-France returns scheme remains in force, and the legal position could still change if the case is appealed. If this affects you, your client, or someone you are advising, specialist advice should be sought urgently, because the outcome will depend heavily on the individual facts, the evidence available, and how quickly the right steps are taken.

For consultations on removal or deportation matters, or for assistance with detailed representations, you may contact me at davidj@gclaw.co.uk

This article is general information about a developing area of UK immigration law as it stands in July 2026 and is not legal advice for any individual case. The judgment may be appealed, so always check the current position.