The High Court has ruled in favour of five Channel migrants who challenged the legality of their deportation under the one-in, one-out deal with France.

The migrants, who claimed to be victims of trafficking, argued that the Home Secretary's removal of their right to appeal deportation rulings violated their fundamental rights.

The court's decision has dealt a significant blow to Shabana Mahmood's plans to curb illegal Channel crossings, as it paves the way for more asylum seekers to contest their removal.

The one-in, one-out agreement with France allows small boat migrants to be deported in exchange for legal arrivals, but the court's ruling highlights concerns about the expedited removal process.Over 200,000 migrants have crossed the Channel illegally since 2018, and the decision may impact the government's strategy to manage migration.Labour MPs have also expressed opposition to the policy, warning of potential losses in progressive voter support.

The case underscores the legal and ethical complexities surrounding immigration enforcement and the balance between national security and human rights.