New judgment: R (Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs  UKSC 35
29 Wednesday Jun 2016
On appeal from:  UKHL 61.
Concerns the challenges to legislation preventing residence in the British Indian Ocean Territories. The judgment R (Bancoult No 2) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs  UKHL 61 was challenged on the grounds that documents disclosed by the FCO in subsequent and separate litigation cast doubt on the reliability of part of a 2002 feasibility study into the resettlement of the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands.
Held, dismissing the appeal by a 3:2 majority: the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct injustice caused by an unfair procedure that leads to an earlier judgment or is revealed by the discovery of fresh evidence. A judgment cannot be set aside just because it is thought to have been wrong on points unrelated to such procedure or evidence. The authorities indicate as the threshold for setting aside a previous judgment whether a significant injustice has “probably occurred” in case of non-disclosure or whether there is a “powerful probability” of significant injustice in case of fresh evidence. On the facts, this was not the case. Furthermore, a 2014-15 feasibility study suggested that scope existed for supported resettlement of BIOT – it was now open to any Chagossian to mount a fresh challenge to the failure to abrogate the relevant legislation.
For judgment, please download:  UKSC 35
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII
To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court website (22 Jun 2015 morning session), (22 Jun 2015 afternoon session).