In the news
The UK Government enforced its first deportations under its controversial “one-in-one-out” asylum-seeker agreement with France this week, despite an interim injunction on Wednesday temporarily blocking the removal of one Eritrean national. Home Office sources reported the deportation of asylum seekers of Indian, Iranian and Eritrean nationality under the scheme; one deportee’s challenge at the High Court on human rights grounds failed upon Mr Justice Sheldon’s finding that, as a fellow signatory of the European Convention, France would afford the applicant the same human rights protections as the UK. Earlier in the week, a 25-year-old Eritrean man had succeeded in being granted an interim injunction temporarily staying his removal to France, after it was argued that the applicant required more time to make representations on his claim to be a victim of modern slavery. The ruling had prompted the newly appointed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to accuse asylum seekers of making “vexatious, last-minute claims” that “make a mockery of this country’s generosity”, and to issue new guidance to the Home Office slavery assessment team. The UK-France Dangerous Journeys Agreement was presented to Parliament last month, and is set to run until June 2026. It provides for the forced return of individuals entering the UK illegally from France, in exchange for the same number of asylum seekers who do meet UK immigration rules. The first French arrivals under the ”exchange” are now due to enter the UK over the next week.
Brazil has filed a declaration of intervention in the case brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in its war on Gaza (South Africa v Israel). The Court confirmed on Friday that Brazil had invoked Article 63 of the ICJ statute, joining states including Belgium, Ireland, Mexico, Spain and Türkiye as formal interveners. The ICJ has now invited South Africa and Israel to “furnish written observations on the declaration of intervention”. In an earlier statement, the country’s Foreign Ministry declared that “Brazil believes there is no longer room for moral ambiguity or political omission. Impunity undermines international legality and undermines the credibility of the multilateral system.” Brazil’s intervention coincides with increased international pressure on Israel, as the UK, Canada, Australia and Portugal officially recognised Palestine statehood this weekend. The ICJ case was filed by South Africa in December 2023 and is not expected to conclude for some years. An interim court order in January 2024, that Israel take action to prevent genocide in Gaza by allowing greater access to humanitarian aid, has been of negligible impact.
In the courts
The High Court has quashed a decision by the UK Home Office which had set in motion the extradition of a Portuguese national to the US on cybercrime charges. It refused, however, the claimant permission to challenge the decision on human rights grounds. R (Santos Coelho) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWHC (Admin) concerned competing extradition warrants issued by the US and Portugal for Diogo Santos Coelho, who allegedly founded and administered the online hacking resource RaidForums. Mr Justice Linden held that the decision of the former Home Secretary James Cleverly, exercising his powers under section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003, to give the US extradition request priority over Portugal’s, was: (1) in unlawful breach of the common law duty to act fairly and allow the claimant to make representations; (2) based on errors of fact (the Home Secretary was misinformed that all victims of the offences were based in the US); and (3) irrational, in that the Portuguese warrant related to more serious offending, and that the claimant’s interests (as a Portuguese national with ties to the country, who was especially vulnerable owing to his autism and poor mental health as a past victim of modern slavery) had to be taken into account. However, further submissions that, under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary had unlawfully infringed upon the claimant’s Article 4 (prohibition of forced or compulsory labour) and Article 8 (private and family life) rights in his decision to expediate the extradition to the US were rejected on the reasoning that, while this was indeed “a matter for the courts in the context of the proceedings relating to the Request”, it was not a matter for the Secretary of State.
