Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, and Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore JSC dissenting) The application failed. It was however common ground that the question now before the court was not whether the majority were correct but whether the issue should be re-opened, and: ‘There is no probability, likelihood or prospect (and, for completeness, in my view also no real possibility) that a court would have seen or would see, in the process of preparation, re-drafting and finalisation of the stage 2B report and in the associated material which can now be seen to have existed, anything which could, would or should have caused the Secretary of State to doubt the General Conclusions, or which made it irrational or otherwise unjustifiable to act on them in June 2004. On that basis, the application to set aside the House of Lords’ judgment by reference to the Rashid and other documents disclosed late must fail.’
Lord Kerr, dissenting, said: ‘If the Rashid documents had been before the House of Lords, the following matters would have had to be squarely confronted: ‘despite the claims for their independence, the consultants had been told in unequivocal terms what the government hoped would be the outcome of their report;
the draft report had to be submitted to BIOT officials who had the opportunity to approve or require amendment of its contents;
much of the science of the report (although not that relating to climatic changes) had been severely criticised by Dr Sheppard;
many of the criticisms of the report by Mr Jenness had been endorsed by Dr Sheppard (even though he was also extremely critical of Mr Jenness);
most importantly, the draft report’s central findings in relation to climate change, couched in conditional terms, had been altered to provide a firm prediction that such changes would take place.
In my view, the collective effect of these revelations is that the appeal might well have been decided differently. The passages from the speeches of the majority which have been quoted earlier, for perfectly understandable reasons, bear no trace of reservation or doubt as to the anticipated consequences of any attempt to resettle the islands. If the members of the House of Lords knew that much of the science of the report was considered to be suspect by the scientist retained by the FCO; that the consultants had been given a clear indication of what the government hoped the report would deliver; that the changes to the conclusions of the preliminary study (which were known) proved to be a mild herald of the more radical changes to the Phase 2B report; that the Chagos Islands were not in an active cyclone belt and that this had a direct bearing on the predictions contained in the report, is it likely that the speeches of the majority concerning the anticipated consequences of an attempt to resettle would have been expressed in such emphatic terms? In my judgment it is not. And if the majority felt compelled, as it surely would, to recognise the lack of certainty in some of the central predictions, is it likely that they would have been prepared to hold as rational a decision to completely deny the Chagossians the right to return to their homeland, simply because a failure to do so would give rise to a campaign that the government should fund resettlement, when it had already been held that they were under no obligation to do so? In my opinion, it is at least distinctly possible that a different view would have been taken by the majority and that the outcome of the appeal would have been different. I would therefore grant the application to re-open the appeal.’
Lord Kerr cited with approval the following summary: ‘A defendant public authority and its lawyers owe a vital duty to make full and fair disclosure of relevant material. That should include (1) due diligence in investigating what material is available; (2) disclosure which is relevant or assists the claimant, including on some as yet unpleaded ground; and (3) disclosure at the permission stage if permission is resisted. . . A main reason why disclosure is not ordered in judicial review is because courts trust public authorities to discharge this self-policing duty, which is why such anxious concern is expressed where it transpires that they have not done so (Fordham, Judicial Review, 6th ed, 2012, p125).’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2016] WLR(D) 344, [2016] UKSC 35, [2017] AC 300, [2016] HRLR 16, [2016] 3 WLR 157, UKSC 2015/0021
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Reconsidered – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
Applied – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Evidence emerged – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 11-Jun-2013
The claimant, displaced from the Chagos Archipelago, challenged a decision by the respondent to create a no-take Marine Protected Area arround the island which would make life there impossible if he and others returned. The respondent renewed his . .
Cited – Re U (A Child) CA 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Cited – Bain v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(New Zealand) The defendant had at a previous Privy Council appeal had his conviction for murder overturned. He now challenged the order for a retrial, saying that subsequent disclosures made this unfair.
Held: The order was refused. The . .
Cited – Re U (A Child) CA 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
At CA – Chagos Islanders v Attorney-General and Another CA 22-Jul-2004
The claimants sought leave to appeal against a finding that they had no cause of action for their expulsion from their islands.
Held: ‘Exile without colour of law is forbidden by Magna Carta. That it can amount to a public law wrong is already . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 23-May-2014
The appellant wished to challenge the decision made by the respondent to declare a ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Area’ covering their former home islands of Chagos. They sought to have entered in evidence of an improper motive in the Minister making . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.566209 br>