The UK-France returns agreement, modern slavery claims, and what the courts have decided so far

What the Home Secretary has said

On 17 September 2025, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said that some migrants were ‘’suddenly deciding that they are a modern slave on the eve of their removal’’ and that she would act to ‘’end vexatious, last minute claims’’. The remarks came after the High Court intervened in the Eritrean case, as reported by The Guardian.

The independent anti-slavery commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, warned that such statements could deter victims from coming forward. She pointed out that parliamentary committees had found no evidence of widespread misuse of modern slavery protections. Speaking to The Independent, she said the comments could have a direct impact on victims in practice.

What the courts have done to date

A High Court judge, Mr Justice Sheldon, granted interim relief to the Eritrean claimant so that his trafficking claim could be investigated, including time to gather evidence. The judge considered the potential consequences of removal whilst those issues were being explored. The Court of Appeal later refused the Home Office permission to appeal this decision.

In some cases, people have been removed where last-minute legal challenges did not succeed, although the numbers remain limited.

The legal framework on modern slavery and trafficking

The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is the UK’s process for identifying and supporting potential victims of slavery and human trafficking. Decision making involves two stages, a reasonable grounds decision followed by a conclusive grounds decision. This process is set out in Home Office statistics and statutory guidance.

1. Reasonable Grounds decision (initial stage): a first screening decision on whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone may be a victim of modern slavery. The threshold is low, sometimes described as ‘’more than a suspicion,’’ and a positive decision provides access to temporary protection and support.
2. Conclusive Grounds decision (full stage): a later decision, made after further evidence has been gathered, on whether it is more likely than not that the person is in fact a victim. A positive decision can lead to longer-term support and protection.

The ‘’objective evidence’’ requirement that was briefly introduced into the reasonable grounds test in 2023 was later withdrawn after legal challenge and sector concerns. Current guidance explains the two-stage approach and the support available.

Where the system is failing

• Identification and timing. Practitioners and the Home Office’s guidance notes that late disclosures are common in trafficking cases, often linked to trauma, fear of reprisals, or lack of trust. Delays are frequently connected to system design and the shortage of timely legal advice rather than any bad faith by claimants.
• Screening for vulnerability. Concerns have been raised about initial selection for removal, including reports that children were mistakenly identified, raising questions about safeguarding and age assessment.
• Access to legal advice. Representative bodies point to a shortage of legal aid capacity, particularly in detention, which means essential representations are often made only at the point of removal.
• Casework delays. Reports describe prolonged decision making within the NRM and a high rate of withdrawals from support, with few survivors going on to pursue compensation.
• Operational consistency. Litigation has also highlighted shifting government positions about evidence gathering, including whether evidence can realistically be obtained or advanced once someone has been returned to France.

What ‘’last minute’’ actually means in practice

Injunctions made just before a removal is due to take place are a common part of public law. They are used where there is a risk of serious harm and not enough time for the court to look at the case fully. In trafficking claims, evidence is often raised late because it can include medical records, expert reports, correspondence from the National Referral Mechanism, or details of the person’s journey that were not available earlier. The guidance requires decision makers to look at all of the evidence, even if it is only provided at a late stage.

What happens next

The government intends to continue with removals under the UK-France agreement and has signalled possible reforms to modern slavery legislation and guidance. Any such changes would have to be assessed against existing duties under UK statute and international law, and may attract further challenge.

Practical information for people affected and for advisers

If there are signs that someone may have been trafficked or exploited, a referral to the National Referral Mechanism should be made by a first responder as soon as possible. Guidance sets out who can act as a first responder and how the two stages of the process are meant to work.

Where removal directions have been issued but evidence of trafficking has not been looked at, urgent legal representations may be needed. In some cases an application for interim relief can also be made so that the evidence is considered before removal goes ahead. Recent court cases have shown that interim relief may be granted where there is a credible trafficking claim.

If the person is a child, or if there is uncertainty about their age, this should be raised without delay and supported with the information available. Concerns have already been raised about children being identified for removal under the UK-France scheme.

Evidence that can be important includes NRM paperwork, expert reports, medical records, country information and accounts of how the journey was made, such as through Libya where trafficking is known to take place. The guidance makes clear that all such material should be considered and given weight when decisions are made.

Shalini Patel, Head of Department, said:

"We act for survivors of trafficking every day and see first-hand how difficult it can be for people to disclose what has happened to them. The law is clear that these claims must be taken seriously, no matter when they are raised. Our role is to ensure that victims are properly identified and protected, and that their voices are heard in a system that too often overlooks their experiences."