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: The court had jurisdiction. An Order in Council banishing British citizens from their home island was unlawful. Any such abrogation of fundamental constitutional rights could only take place, if at all, either by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation under primary legislation expressly framed to create this power. This was a ceded colony, and not a settled colony, and therefore the Act did not apply, and the British courts were left with jurisdiction. The court commended the defendant for having: ‘disclosed without cavil or argument all the material documents contained in the files of government departments, some of which (as will be obvious from the narrative I have given) are embarrassing and worse’ whuch ‘exemplified a high tradition of co-operation between the executive and the judiciary in the doing of justice; and upholding the rule of law.’
Judges:
Laws, Gibbs LJJ
Citations:
Times 10-Nov-2000, Gazette 07-Dec-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 413, [2001] QB 1067
Links:
Statutes:
British Settlement Act 1887, British Indian Ocean Territory Ordinance 1971 No 1 of 1971
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Cowle 1759
The case establishes the English High Court’s jurisdiction to grant prerogative writs against the Crown’s servants whether in Great Britain or overseas provided the subject matter of the application arises in relation to the territory of the Crown. . .
Leave to bring review – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
Cited – Regina v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta CA 1982
The court considered an application leave to request a judicial review seeking a declaration that treaty obligations entered into by the Crown to the Indian peoples of Canada were still owed by Her Majesty in right of Her government in the UK.
Cited – Regina v The Secretary of State for The Home Department, ex parte Bhurosah CA 1968
In Mauritius the Queen is the Queen of Mauritius and the issuing of passports by the Government of Mauritius, although a matter of foreign affairs and therefore under the control of the UK Government, was an act carried out in the name of the Queen . .
Cited – Liyanage v The Queen PC 1967
(Ceylon) The appellants had been convicted of grave criminal offences under laws of the Parliament of Ceylon. The Act under which they were convicted was passed after an abortive coup, and deprived the appellants retrospectively of their right to . .
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited by:
See also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
Cited – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for having had its licence to catch Patagonian toothfish off South Georgia revoked, saying that it had infringed its property rights under the Convention.
Held: Though the Convention rights had been extended to . .
Cited – 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 Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
See Also – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 11-May-2006
The claimant on behalf of himself and other islanders sought a declaration that the 2004 Order was unlawful. The islands had been emptied of people in 1973 and before in order to allow use of the islands as military bases. He had enjoyed a right to . .
At first instance – 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 . .
See Also – Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) CA 23-May-2007
The claimant was a Chagos Islander removed in 1970 to make way for a US airbase. The court had ordered that the islanders be allowed to return, but the appellant had passed an Order in Council effectively reversing the position, and now appealed a . .
See Also – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 25-Jul-2012
The claimant sought in advance permission to cross examine two civil servants at a forthcoming judicial review. Documents had been leaked and widely published suggesting that the decision now to be challenged had been taken for improper purposes. . .
See Also – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 21-Nov-2012
Reasons for decision allowing re-amendment of claim and requiring production of documents by a non-party. . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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 – Barclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140229