R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweal...

Facts

• The case involves the legality of Orders in Council that prevent the resettlement of the Chagossian people on the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
• The Chagossians were forcibly removed from the Chagos Archipelago in the 1960s and 1970s to allow for the establishment of a US military base on Diego Garcia.
• The displacement was conducted under the authority of the Royal Prerogative.
• The claimants challenged the Orders in Council on the basis they unlawfully denied the Chagossians the right to return to their homeland.
• The dispute centers on the legal boundaries of the Royal Prerogative and its use for governing overseas territories.
• The government argued the prerogative power over overseas territories was absolute and not subject to judicial review.
• The House of Lords heard the claim, resulting in a closely split decision.

Issues

1. Whether the Orders in Council preventing Chagossian resettlement in BIOT were lawful.
2. Whether the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in relation to overseas territories is subject to judicial review.
3. Whether fundamental rights, such as the right of abode, limit the scope of the Royal Prerogative.
4. Whether the government acted improperly in using prerogative powers to deny Chagossians the right to return.

Decision

• The House of Lords, by a narrow majority, upheld the lawfulness of the Orders in Council.
• The majority emphasized the distinctive constitutional status of overseas territories and the broad discretion available to the executive in exercising prerogative powers over them.
• The decision confirmed that such prerogative powers could be exercised with limited judicial oversight.
• Dissenting judges, notably Lord Bingham, contended that the Royal Prerogative is not immune from judicial review where fundamental rights are engaged.
• The ruling generated controversy and ongoing legal debate.

Legal Principles

• The Royal Prerogative generally grants the government broad authority over the governance of overseas territories.
• The scope of judicial review of prerogative powers remains limited, particularly concerning overseas territories.
• There is significant debate regarding the justiciability of prerogative powers when fundamental rights are at stake.
• The case demonstrates tension between executive discretion and the protection of individual rights under administrative law.

Conclusion

R (Bancoult) v Foreign Secretary (No 2) reaffirmed the wide reach of prerogative powers over British overseas territories, confirming the validity of Orders in Council excluding the Chagossians, while provoking enduring debate about the balance between government authority and fundamental rights.