Di 🇮🇪 🇬🇧 Question Everything!

A heartbreaking day for the Chagossians. We lost because appeal judges ruled that the original court had no power to overturn the law banning them from living on their ancestral islands. Our next possible routes are the Privy Council or a fresh challenge in England. This is David versus Goliath. The British state forcibly removed these people from their homeland over 50 years ago, and today their descendants are still fighting for the right to return. Great British PAC will not abandon them. This fight is far from over. 🇬🇧 Chagos judgment: The key findings explained (as we currently understand them) The 33-page judgment handed down on 12 November 2026 is a significant defeat for the four Chagossian claimants. However, understanding exactly why the judges ruled against them is important because it also helps identify what legal options may remain. The five judges unanimously allowed all four grounds of the BIOT Commissioner's appeal and dismissed all four grounds of the Chagossians' cross-appeal. Here are the eight most important findings, explained in straightforward terms. 1. The original judge did not have the power to overturn the constitutional ban Paragraphs 10–43, pages 5–16 This was the central reason for the Government's victory. In March 2026, Chief Justice James Lewis KC ruled that Section 9 of the 2004 BIOT Constitution Order was unlawful. This provision states that nobody has an automatic right to live in the Chagos Islands. However, the Court of Appeal found that the BIOT Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to strike down the Constitution Order because it was made by the British Crown acting on behalf of the United Kingdom. The judges said any challenge to the constitutional provision must instead be brought before the High Court in England and Wales, against the Foreign Secretary. What this means: The original judgment was overturned partly because the constitutional challenge had been decided in the wrong court. 2. The original judge made procedural errors Paragraphs 44–56, pages 16–21 The appeal judges found that the Chagossians' original legal claim had not properly included a challenge to the validity of Section 9. Instead, that issue was raised later in the proceedings. They also found that Chief Justice Lewis had introduced his own argument that the constitutional provision had been unlawful from the moment it was created in 2004, without giving the parties a proper opportunity to address that argument. What this means: The appeal judges considered that the Government had not been given a sufficiently fair opportunity to respond to the case ultimately decided by the original judge. 3. The judges ruled that an earlier House of Lords decision must be followed Paragraphs 57–67, pages 21–24 In 2008, the House of Lords ruled by a majority of three to two that the 2004 constitutional restrictions on residence were lawful. That case was known as Bancoult No. 2. Chief Justice Lewis had instead agreed with the two dissenting judges, who considered the restrictions unlawful. The Court of Appeal held that he was bound by the earlier majority decision. It also concluded that, even if he had not been legally bound, he should have given compelling reasons for departing from it. What this means: The earlier ruling remains a major legal obstacle to establishing a right of return. 4. The Mauritius agreement does not automatically remove the restrictions Paragraphs 68–72, pages 24–26 The original judge had considered whether the 2025 agreement transferring sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius undermined the reasons previously given for preventing resettlement. He questioned whether the defence and financial arguments against allowing Chagossians to return remained valid. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled that the judge had incorrectly assessed the legal effect of a treaty which had not yet been incorporated into domestic law. It also found insufficient evidence to conclude that Britain's defence concerns or the financial obstacles to resettlement had disappeared. The judges noted that money payable to Mauritius under the agreement was not specifically earmarked for resettlement. What this means: The treaty did not provide a sufficient legal basis for overturning the restrictions. However, the judges did not rule that resettlement could never happen. 5. The court rejected an automatic right for Chagossians to live on the islands Paragraph 73, page 26 This is one of the most consequential findings. The Court of Appeal ruled that Chagossians do not possess an underlying common-law right to enter or reside in the territory. The judges recognised that some Chagossians had been legally entitled to enter the islands between 2000 and 2004, but said that right had been granted by legislation and subsequently removed. They relied on the principle that a legal right of residence can be created or removed by law. What this means: Under the present legal framework, the Chagossians' ancestral connection to the islands does not, by itself, give them an enforceable right to live there. This is a particularly important distinction between the legal position and the Chagossians' continuing moral and historical claims. 6. The removal notices were lawful Paragraphs 75–89, pages 27–30 The four Chagossians arrived on Île du Coin on 16 February 2026 without immigration permits. Two days later, officials issued removal notices. The original judge had cancelled those notices, partly because he believed the claimants had been treated unfairly. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that the immigration authorities had acted lawfully. The judges found that: The claimants had entered without the necessary permits. They had made clear their intention to remain permanently. Officials were not legally required to invite representations before issuing the notices. The subsequent appeal procedure provided an opportunity to challenge the decision. The claimants' administrative appeal had not set out specific grounds for overturning the notices. The judges also rejected the argument that officials should have considered granting temporary heritage-visit permits to people who had expressly stated that they intended to remain permanently. What this means: The removal notices are legally valid again. However, the judgment does not expressly establish the current status of any separate injunction preventing physical removal. 7. The court rejected the crimes against humanity arguments Paragraphs 92–94, pages 31–32 The Chagossians' lawyers argued that removing them could constitute a crime against humanity or a continuation of the historical wrong committed against their people. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. It found that the relevant criminal-law provisions did not establish the claims within the BIOT legal system. The judges also agreed with the first-instance court's conclusion that the immigration officers' actions against these particular claimants did not constitute the alleged criminal offences. What this means: The court rejected the legal argument that enforcing these removal notices would amount to a crime against humanity. It did not, however, conclude that the original forced displacement of the Chagossian population was justified. 8. The court overturned the previous costs order Paragraphs 95–98, page 32 The original court had made no order requiring either side to pay the other's legal costs. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It directed that any party seeking a costs order should apply within 14 days of the judgment. What this means: There is potential financial exposure for the claimants, although the judgment itself does not specify a final costs award.