R (on the application of Bancoult) Respondent v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Appellant)

The appeal was heard by the House of Lords in October 2008. The appeal concerned the validity of section 9 of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which prohibited any person from entering or residing in the Territory except as authorised by the Order or any other law. The case had its origins in the forced removal of the Chagossian inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in the 1960s and 1970s. The Chagossians were descendants of French settlers and African slaves who had settled on the islands and had lived there for generations. In 1965, the United Kingdom detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and constituted it as a separate colony, BIOT, to allow the United States to establish a military base on Diego Garcia. The Chagossians were removed from the islands to make way for the base. In 2000, the High Court of England and Wales quashed the 1971 Immigration Ordinance which had prohibited the Chagossians from returning to the islands. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision in 2004. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords allowed the appeal and held that section 9 of the Constitution Order 2004 was valid. The court rejected the argument that the Order was contrary to fundamental principles of English law, and held that the Crown had the power to legislate for a ceded colony. The court also rejected the argument that the Order was an abuse of power, and held that the decision to impose immigration control on the islands was not unreasonable or an abuse of power. The court held that the Foreign Secretary's press statement after the judgment in Bancoult (1) did not create a legitimate expectation that the Chagossians would be free from immigration controls. The court held that the decision to reimpose immigration control on the islands was justified by the practicalities of resettlement, the security interests of the United Kingdom and the United States, and the absence of any credible threat of protest landings by the Chagossians.