Skip to main content

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. How Public Law Has Not Been Able to Provide the Chagossians with a Remedy

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The deportation of the population of the Chagos Islands between 1965 and 1973 and their exile into poverty and despair is among the worst acts of colonial misgovernance committed by the United Kingdom in the twentieth century. A succession of legal actions and public pressure has since forced the UK Government to acknowledge and publicly ‘regret’ what it did, but it has nonetheless resisted any real effort to find a resolution.
This chapter examines the attempts, over a period of four decades, to find a legal solution. It traces the extraordinary tactics adopted by UK Government officials from the outset and which continue to this day to cheat this impoverished and vulnerable community of their birthright. This has included deceiving the United Nations, the Public and Chagossians; and recently included withholding information from the courts. It also critically examines judicial decisions and exposes the illogical reasoning of some judges which has led to a failure to give effect to the rights long-enshrined in the Common Law, the clear protections of Magna Carta, and the ‘omna erges’ character of International Law. It highlights the fact that despite frequent criticism and upholding the theoretical illegality of the Exile, the judiciary has failed to create or recognise any remedy for the plight of Chagossians, and has both denied them compensation, and upheld an Order-in-Council which was covertly used in 2004 to in effect overturn an earlier judicial decision and abolish their right of abode.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
E.g., ‘refueling facilities’: Telegram from the US Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Departments of State and Defense. US National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, DEF 15 IND–US. Secret; Immediate.
 
2
Gifford and Dunne (2014), p. 37.
 
3
R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 1) [2000] QB 1067. Statement of Marcel Moulinie dated 22 November 1999 at [14].
 
4
The Chagossians alone were made to pay a personal price for the defence establishment on Diego Garcia, which was regarded by the UK and US Governments as necessary for the defence of the West and its values. Many were given nothing for years but a callous separation from their homes, belongings and way of life and a terrible journey to privation and hardship’ per Ouseley J in Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 222, [154].
 
5
AI Aust (Legal Adviser) Memorandum dated 23 October 1968 ‘Legal Aspects of BIOT Immigration’; Folio 2 in File FCO 32/490 ‘BIOT Social Status and Citizenship of Diego Garcia Inhabitants’, National Archives, Kew, London.
 
6
See the series of cases led by Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos islanders infra.
 
7
Historical illustrations of these tactics are many. These are summarised in Gifford (2009), Accessed 10 October 2017.
 
8
For example (a) the misleading of the UN in 1965 did not become known until 2007, by our own researches, (b) the denial of the Feasibility Study file conducted between 2000 and 2002, which was requested from FCO in 2005–2008, was not discovered until 2012, years after the House of Lords had relied on it to deny Chagossians right of abode (c) records of meetings between UK and Mauritian representatives concerning traditional fishing rights were discovered in the National Archives which contradicted the FCO accounts after appeals had been defeated, (d) Statements of determination to keep Chagossians from their homeland, made to US officials were not known until revealed by WikiLeaks.
 
9
The Banaban Islanders Case—Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] 3 All ER.
 
10
Now Known as the “Cité Ilois” at Roche Bois, built by the Mauritian Government.
 
11
It was reported in Le Mauricien dated 23 March 1982 that Minister Bérenger informed the meeting of Chagossians that ‘L’accord était total entre les délégations anglaise et mauricienne. En ce qui concerne le montant compensatoire à etre accordé et le non-renoncement des Ilois à leurs droits de retour a Diego Garcia, a expliqué M. Bérenger’. This contemporaneous report was finessed by Ouseley J who said, merely, that ‘There was a mass meeting at which the outcome of the 1982 negotiations were explained, and the 1982 Agreement received widespread publicity. But it is not easy at this stage, indeed I doubt very much whether it will ever be possible, to be sure how well known it was in 1982 that there was a provision in the Agreement for some renunciation form, which individuals would have to sign’ Chagos Islanders v Attorney General, [528].
 
12
Ilois (‘islanders’) was the former term used for Chagossians.
 
13
Bancoult (No. 1) (n 3) affidavit of Peter Wesmacott dated 25 August 1999 at [79].
 
14
Bancoult (No. 1) (n 3).
 
15
Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 2222.
 
16
Report on Remedies in Administrative Law, Law Commission No 73 Cmnd 6407, 1976.
 
17
Arguendo.
 
18
Ibbralebbe v R [1964] AC 900, 923.
 
19
R v Sekgome [1910] 2 KB 576.
 
20
Winfat Enterprises (Hong Kong) Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 733, 747.
 
21
Per Laws LJ ‘peace, order and good government may be a very large tapestry, but every tapestry has a border’. Bancoult (No. 1) (n 3) [55].
 
22
Per Laws LJ in Bancoult (No. 1) (n 3) [59] ‘In my judgment, for all these reasons, the apparatus of s.4 of the Ordinance has no colour of lawful authority…. S.4 of the Ordinance effectively exiles the Ilois from the territory where they are belongers and forbids their return’ a breach of Magna Carta by another name?
 
23
Chagos Islanders v Attorney General (n 15), per Ouseley J [737–748].
 
24
ibid.
 
25
[2001] UKHL 16.
 
26
Bourgoin SA v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716. (emphasis added). The court cited Dunlop v Woolahra and Burgoin v Ministry of Agriculture.
 
27
Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2004] EWCA Civ 997, per Sedley LJ, [27].
 
28
ibid, [28] (emphasis added).
 
29
DPP v Bhagwan [1972] AC 60. This merely declared the right of abode in one’s homeland. It did not create new law.
 
30
No witness from the FCO gave evidence, since they had secured pre-trial directions to obviate this.
 
31
Appellants’ Argument on Appeal.
 
32
[2001] UKHL 16.
 
33
[126].
 
34
[126] (emphasis added).
 
35
See e.g. Lord Sumption ‘Magna Carta then and now Address to the Friends of the British Library’, 9 March Lord Sumption (2015) available at https://​www.​supremecourt.​uk/​docs/​speech-150309.​pdf.
Maitland’s assessment was relied on also by Laws LJ in Bancoult (No. 1) at [35]. It is ironic that the word ‘sacred’ is the word that describes the ‘trust’ obligation in Chapter 11 UN Charter to protect the right of self-determination of non-self-governing peoples. This sacred trust was easily evaded by the simple pretext of misleading the UN Decolonisation Committee about the permanence of the population.
 
36
Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom [2012] European Court of Human Rights Application no 35622/04.
 
37
The governance of the BIOT as a British Colony (now called ‘Overseas Territory’) ceded by another State (France in 1814) is by the Royal Prerogative. Parliament plays no part. The Foreign Secretary exercises the Prerogative which is then ‘rubber stamped’ by the Sovereign.
 
38
R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61.
 
39
Contrast this to the FCO’s willingness to fulfil its Duty of Candour in Bancoult (No. 1) which at the time drew praise from the court.
 
40
A report prepared by Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, New Zealand.
 
41
R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2016] UKSC 35.
 
42
To reflect accepted practice, in January 2010 the Government Lawyer, the Treasury Solicitor, published ‘Guidance on Discharging the Duty of Candour and Disclosure in Judicial Review Proceedings’. The guidance is explicitly for ‘departments and litigation case handlers intended to help you to discharge your duty as a public servant to assist the court with full and accurate explanations of all the facts relevant to the issue the court must decide’.
 
43
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) [3].
 
44
ibid, [132].
 
45
ibid, [137].
 
46
ibid, [140].
 
47
ibid, [145].
 
48
Ibid, [146].
 
49
ibid, [149].
 
50
ibid, [165].
 
51
ibid, [166].
 
52
ibid, [168].
 
53
Ibid, [189].
 
54
ibid, [192].
 
55
ibid, [193].
 
56
ibid, [193].
 
57
In 2012 the coalition government decided to redo the whole resettlement feasibility process. The new consultants, KPMG, filed their report in January 2015, in which all the bad science and preconceived conclusions were excluded, and no obstacle to resettlement identified. Despite this new advice (and after the Supreme Court hearing in 2015 and judgment in 2016) the government have concluded their ‘Policy Review’ of the future of the Chagos with the announcement on 16 November 2016 that resettlement would not be permitted. Coincidentally in December 2016 the US/UK Exchange of Notes for the use of the Chagos islands by the US for defence purposes was automatically renewed without any revision for a further 20 years until 2036.
 
58
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) [78].
 
59
ibid, [176].
 
60
ibid, [177].
 
61
ibid, [178].
 
62
ibid, [62].
 
63
ibid, [65].
 
64
Ibid, [33].
 
65
ibid, [168].
 
66
ibid, [43].
 
67
Ibid, [45].
 
68
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) Case Bundle E 1209.
 
69
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) [48].
 
70
Ibid, [146].
 
71
Ibid, [49].
 
72
ibid, [49].
 
73
ibid, [49].
 
74
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) Case Bundle E 1210 (emphasis added).
 
75
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) [50].
 
76
ibid [51].
 
77
Lord Mance’s confidence in Dr Sheppard’s qualifications and therefore abilities would appear to have been misplaced notwithstanding that Mr Bancoult’s challenge on this point was unrefuted: ‘Dr Sheppard was (and is) a biologist, and is not an oceanographer, hydrodynamic modeller, coastal process expert, or sea-level expert. Nor was he a “climate change expert”, as described in the [Secretary of State’s] Grounds of Objection (at paragraph 143 of the Annex)…. It is also fair to note that the Grounds of Objection considerably exaggerate Dr Sheppard’s professional standing. In particular he was never Head of Biological Sciences at Warwick University, as stated at Grounds of Objection, paragraph 143, although he was based at Warwick.’ (Case Bundle E584 & 585—Claimant’s Rejoinder to Defendant’s Grounds of Objection dated 23 January 2015).
 
78
Bancoult (No. 2) (n 41) [56].
 
79
ibid, [149] (emphasis in the original).
 
80
ibid, [64].
 
81
ibid, [78].
 
82
ibid, [170].
 
83
ibid, [171].
 
84
ibid, [70].
 
85
R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 3) [2014] 1 WLR 2921.
 
86
In the Matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration, between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 18 March 2015.
 
87
Mr Bancoult’s counsel again argued before the Supreme Court in Bancoult (No. 3) that this represented a further failure by the FCO to discharge its Duty of Candour.
 
88
Per Ouseley J Chagos Islanders v Attorney General (n 15), [531] ‘I regard as wholly unreliable or as positively untrue most of what the Chagossian witnesses said about the correspondence in 1979–1982 which referred to money being paid in full and final settlement.’…‘Mrs Talate was…unreliable and at times untruthful’ ([518])_,... ‘Rita Elyse, Olivier Bancoult’s mother, her later claims were not credible…’‘Mrs. Jaffar’s evidence was not credible…’([521]). ‘Mrs Kattick was an intelligent witness but not always honest or reliable’ ([517])… ‘Rita David was similarly unreliable’ ([519]). ‘Mr Laval was not credible…’. Thus the united front of Chagossian evidence as to the non-renunciation of their rights was dismissed.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat AI Aust (Legal Adviser) Memorandum dated 23 October 1968 ‘Legal Aspects of BIOT Immigration’ AI Aust (Legal Adviser) Memorandum dated 23 October 1968 ‘Legal Aspects of BIOT Immigration’
Zurück zum Zitat Bourgoin SA v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716 Bourgoin SA v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716
Zurück zum Zitat Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 222 Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 222
Zurück zum Zitat Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2004] EWCA Civ 997 Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2004] EWCA Civ 997
Zurück zum Zitat Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom [2012] European Court of Human Rights Application no 35622/04 Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom [2012] European Court of Human Rights Application no 35622/04
Zurück zum Zitat Folio 2 in File FCO 32/490 ‘BIOT Social Status and Citizenship of Diego Garcia Inhabitants’, National Archives, Kew, London Folio 2 in File FCO 32/490 ‘BIOT Social Status and Citizenship of Diego Garcia Inhabitants’, National Archives, Kew, London
Zurück zum Zitat Gifford R, Dunne RP (2014) A dispossessed people: the depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago 1965–1973. Popul Space Place 20:37–49CrossRef Gifford R, Dunne RP (2014) A dispossessed people: the depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago 1965–1973. Popul Space Place 20:37–49CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 1) [2000] QB 1067 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 1) [2000] QB 1067
Zurück zum Zitat R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61
Zurück zum Zitat R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2016] UKSC 35 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2016] UKSC 35
Zurück zum Zitat R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 3) [2014] 1 WLR 2921 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 3) [2014] 1 WLR 2921
Zurück zum Zitat Report on Remedies in Administrative Law, Law Commission No 73 Cmnd 6407, 1976 Report on Remedies in Administrative Law, Law Commission No 73 Cmnd 6407, 1976
Zurück zum Zitat Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] 3 All ER Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] 3 All ER
Zurück zum Zitat US National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, DEF 15 IND–US. Secret; Immediate US National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, DEF 15 IND–US. Secret; Immediate
Zurück zum Zitat Winfat Enterprises (Hong Kong) Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 733 Winfat Enterprises (Hong Kong) Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] 1 AC 733
Metadaten
Titel
How Public Law Has Not Been Able to Provide the Chagossians with a Remedy
verfasst von
Richard Gifford
Copyright-Jahr
2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78541-7_4

Premium Partner