Keystone Law advises British Chagossian citizens on hearing before the High Court

Keystone Law’s partner James Tumbridge is today representing two British Chagossian citizens (the Mandarins) at an oral permission hearing before the High Court in London. The oral permission hearing will confirm whether the judicial review claim is arguable and merits a full hearing.

The Mandarins claim the UK Government has failed to consult the Chagossian community on the impact of transferring the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) to Mauritius. Their claim will be heard alongside a linked judicial review brought by another Claimant, Ms Pompe.

The claim is brought on six legal grounds:

1. Consultation duty

• The Government should have properly consulted Chagossians about resettlement, rights of abode, fishing rights, and related decisions before acting.
• The Claimants argue the earlier paper decision misunderstood this ground as a challenge to whether to sign the treaty, but it is not.

2. Irrationality/failure to disclose

• The Government failed to rationally consider Chagossian interests, especially given its position that national security no longer justifies exclusion a civilian population from the outer islands.

3. Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

• The Foreign Office referred to an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) but failed to provide the decision-making record when requested, and late provision of a document purporting to be the assessment does not meet the requirements.

4. European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 14 (prohibits discrimination)

• Even if BIOT falls outside the scope of the Human Rights Act, as this is a UK decision affecting British citizens, discrimination arguments under Article 14 still apply.

5. Procedural fairness/self-determination

• There was a failure to have a fair process, such as a consultation or survey, with Chagossians to ascertain their views on issues that will fundamentally affect them.

6. ECHR Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence)

• This decision could impact visits to ancestral graves, family connections and cultural life.
• Whilst Article 8 does not confer a ‘land right’, it requires fair procedures before decisions that significantly affect private/family life.

James Tumbridge, said:

“Legally, this is about ensuring the Government follows lawful process and equality duties. Morally, it is about treating those affected with respect. With national security no longer used to block resettlement in principle, it is time for genuine consultation, transparency, and fair consideration of Chagossian rights.”