Weekly Round-Up: ‘One-in, one-out’, restriction zones, suspects’ asylum status, seeking parole, and libel in the courts
11 August 2025
In UK News:
The first migrants were detained under the new ‘one-in, one-out’ deal with France. The ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys’ came into force on 6 August; detentions began at lunchtime that day. Under the scheme, anyone crossing the Channel in a small boat can be returned to France. An equal number of migrants will be eligible under a new legal route to come to the UK. The Agreement, which governs the pilot scheme, will remain in force until June 2026.
The government announced ‘restriction zones’ curbing freedom of movement for serious violent and sexual offenders. Under the new plans, offenders will be confined to agreed areas — a step beyond existing ‘exclusion zone’ measures which simply prevent them entering a location where the victim lives. Restriction zones will be technologically monitored, with prison time as a possible sanction.
The Home Secretary called for police to disclose the nationality and asylum status of criminal suspects. This follows the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire in July. Police refused to reveal the immigration status of the two men charged, prompting accusations of a ‘cover-up’ from Reform leader Nigel Farage. Current guidance by the College of Policing is silent on whether this information should be released. The College has said that this guidance is already under review.
In the Courts:
The challenges faced by prisoners seeking parole were highlighted in Connor, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 164. The Applicant, a convicted murderer, had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1998 with an 18-year minimum term (less time on remand); he was now more than 10 years over tariff. His first instance application for parole having failed, he appealed on the grounds that the hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was irrational. The review acknowledged that the initial panel had relied on ‘errors of fact’ which they received through ‘quotations from previous parole decisions’; furthermore, that the Applicant’s psychologist and Prison Offender Manager agreed he could be released. Nevertheless, the panel was entitled to take the view that the Applicant should be tested further in open conditions before release. The decision expressed ‘sympathy for the Applicant’, who is ‘10 years over tariff and…has responded to everything that has been asked of him including getting very many qualifications including a degree.’ Nevertheless, the correct measure was to recommend a transfer to open conditions to the Secretary of State and ‘hope that…a further review can take place’: ‘that seems…to be what justice requires’.
A ‘combative and constantly argumentative’ claimant failed in his libel claim against The Spectator. Mohammed Hegab v (1) The Spectator (2) Douglas Murray [2025] EWHC 2043 (KB) involved an article, written by Douglas Murray and published in the Spectator, which described Mr Hegab as a ‘street agitator…whipping up’ tensions between Muslims and Hindus. Mr Hegab was an internet personality alias ‘Mohammed Hijab’; the article concerned inflammatory language used by him at an anti-Israel protest in 2021 and during unrest in Leicester in 2022. The main issues in the case were serious harm to reputation and the truth defence. The court found for the defendants on both grounds. With regards to serious harm, it was held (inter alia) that the content Mr Hegab himself published was ‘at least as reputationally damaging to him as the article’ and that he ‘positively revelled in any form of publicity’. With regards to the truth defence, the court held that Mr Murray’s description of Mr Hegab was substantially true. In making its finding, the court emphasised Mr Hegab had ‘deliberately act[ed] irresponsibly, raising the temperature of a volatile and potentially dangerous situation with provocative and inflammatory language’.
Note from editor: Details of the Hegab libel case can be found from the defendants’ YouTube post here. In Law Pod UK we interviewed Greg Callus about the problem of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation. Callus was counsel for the defendants in this case, a classic example of the strategic use of libel claims to intimidate or silence critics with the threat of expensive and time-consuming lawsuits
The UK Human Rights Blog is now available on Substack – see our profile and subscribe here.
