Chagos Islanders v Attorney General and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ02X01287 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 09 October 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 2222 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley
Case No: HQ02X01287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Robin Allen QC, Simon Taylor QC, Anthony Bradley & Thomas Coghlin (instructed by Sheridan's Solicitors) for the Claimants
John Howell QC, Rhodri Thompson QC & Kieron Beal (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
Hearing dates : 31 Oct, 1–15, 19, 21, 25, 27–29 Nov, 2–9, 11–20 Dec, 6–10 Jan.
Approved Judgment
Mr Justice Ouseley:
Overview
The Chagos Archipelago lies in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is approximately 2,200 miles east of Mombasa in Kenya and a little over 1,000 miles south by west of the southern tip of India, and so about 1,000 miles east of Mahe, the chief island in the Seychelles, and 800 miles north-east of Port Louis in Mauritius. The largest island in the group is Diego Garcia; its irregular u-shaped sides enclose a large, deep lagoon. The group includes the Salomon islands, the islands of Peros Banhos, as well as a number of smaller islands.
The Chagos islands, with Mauritius, were ceded by France to the Crown by the Treaty of Paris in 1814. They were administered by the Crown from Mauritius as its "Lesser Dependencies" along with St Brandon and Agalega, which was about 1,000 miles from the Chagos islands, half way between Mauritius and the Seychelles.
Their economy was based on the production of copra and its by-product, coconut oil, from the coconut plantations. During the 19 th century, the freeholds, as it is convenient to call them, passed into the private hands of the companies which ran the plantations, although there was an issue as to whether these private freeholds applied to the full extent of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and the Salomon Islands.
The companies ran the islands in a somewhat feudal manner. The vast distance from Mauritius left the plantation managers in day-to-day charge; visits by Mauritian officials were rare and the Magistrate was at best an annual visitor. Plantation managers had powers as Peace Officers to imprison insubordinate labourers for short periods, or to detain those threatening to breach the peace.
The plantation companies provided the sole source of employment on the islands, save for a meteorological station on Diego Garcia, though a few children, women and elderly people worked as servants for plantation company staff. They did this to earn their rations, although it does not appear to have been a universal requirement that the young and old should work. A few worked for the plantation companies in construction, administration or, perhaps, in fishing.
Company shops provided for simple purchases; wages were very low but the companies provided food rations, a small dispensary, very basic medical attention, limited educational facilities and a priest. Their agent, helped by a Mauritius Government subsidy, provided transportation by ship to and from Mauritius for departing or leave-taking workers or for those seeking more serious medical attention; often mothers-to-be went to Mauritius to give birth. The ship brought rations and other necessities or comforts.
The abolition of slavery in 1833, and the entitlement of slaves to remain in the colony in which they were freed, meant that many freed slaves had continued to work the plantations.
Although in theory from 1838, all Mauritian labourers were on contracts of one to two years' duration, renewable annually, many plantation workers continued working without a written renewal of their contracts. The contracts could only be renewed in front of a Magistrate on his occasional, supposedly annual, visits but even that was not routinely done, at least in latter years. Contracts were sometimes renewed when a worker returned from Mauritius following leave or a trip for medical purposes.
Over time, the plantation workers, whether recruits from Mauritius who stayed on or the descendants of slaves who never left, had families. Some of the children would leave for Mauritius, where relatives might be and to which they looked for a more varied life; they might simply not return. Others would become, from an early age, and after at best the most rudimentary and brief education, plantation workers. They would inter-marry, or marry Mauritian recruited labourers and in turn have families. After the Second World War, Seychelles' labourers were recruited as well, and some too inter-married, or married existing residents starting families on the islands.
The population, then, consisted of three strands, Mauritian and Seychelles contract workers and, to a degree intermingled with them, those who had been born on the islands and whose families had lived there for one or more generations. These latter were known as the Ilois, a term not always used with a precise or commonly agreed definition. Most of them lived on Diego Garcia, the largest island. They now, but again with no precise or commonly agreed definition, describe themselves as "Chagossians", a name which they prefer to "Ilois" because that has come to have pejorative connotations.
It is their existence, legal status and rights and what the United Kingdom Government and colonial administrations have believed about them, which lie at the heart of this case.
By the early 1960s, the islands' population was in decline, as low wages, monotonous work, the lack of facilities and the great distance to Mauritius and the Seychelles discouraged recruitment or the retention of labour. The plantations suffered from a lack of investment.
In 1962, a company called Chagos Agalega Company Limited was formed in the Seychelles. One of its main shareholders was a Mr Paul Moulinie. The company acquired almost all of the plantation islands, of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos, the Salomon Islands, and Agalega from the Mauritian companies which had owned them. The company intended to and did run the coconut plantations for the production of copra; it believed that they could be revived and run profitably, notwithstanding years of decline.
In 1964, discussions started in earnest between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments over the possible establishment of American defence facilities in the Chagos Archipelago, or other Indian Ocean islands which formed part of the dependant territory of the Seychelles. A joint UK/US memorandum agreed on a course of political action, including the need to separate the requisite dependencies from Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The independence of Mauritius was imminent and the independence of the Seychelles was at least anticipated. The United States did not wish its facilities to be dependant on the goodwill and stability of such newly independent countries, whose view of American defence facilities in the Indian Ocean might not have coincided with its own. It proposed that the islands be detached from Mauritius and the Seychelles and formed into another, separate dependant territory. It was recognised that the establishment of a new dependency or colony would attract criticism in the United Nations, even more so were it to be created to facilitate an American military presence in the Indian Ocean. From an early stage, the United Kingdom and United States Governments recognised that the transfer or resettlement of those on the islands would be necessary, both for the effective security and operation of the military facility and to avoid the prospect of the new dependency becoming subject to international obligations in Article 73 of the UN Charter to protect the population and to develop their constitutional rights, perhaps towards independence. Islands populated by contract workers or with an insignificant population which could be transferred or easily resettled were obviously attractive in those respects.
In 1964, in pursuit of this objective, a joint Anglo-American survey of the islands including their population was undertaken. Its purpose was not publicised. It found little trace of the once distinctive Diego Garcian community. In 1965, the United Kingdom decided to proceed with the detachment of the islands. Discussions were held between the UK Government and the Governments of Mauritius and of the Seychelles upon the terms of the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and of Aldabra, Farquhar and Desroches from the Seychelles. Agreement was reached on the detachment of the islands subject to the payment of compensation to the governments, compensation to the landowners and the payment of resettlement costs. The Mauritius Government was to receive compensation of £3m plus the resettlement costs; the Seychelles Government was to be provided with a new civil airport on Mahe.
On 8 th November 1965, the British Indian Ocean Territory Order in Council, SI 1965/1920 was made. It established a new colony, the British Indian Ocean Territory. It comprised the Chagos Archipelago, Aldabra, Farquhar and Desroches. The Governor of the Seychelles became its Commissioner. The Order in Council provided its constitution, gave legislative powers to the Commissioner and provided for a general continuance in force of the existing laws applicable in the islands, either Seychellois or Mauritian.
On 30 th December 1966, in an Exchange of Notes, the UK and US Governments agreed that the islands should be available to meet their various defence needs for an initial period of 50 years, and thereafter for 20 years, unless either Government gave notice to terminate the agreement.
The next stage was for the UK Government to acquire the land interests held by Chagos Agalega Company Limited. At this point, however, the US proposals were neither public nor approved by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)
...... they have been known as Ilois, a Creole word for islanders. . 2 The BIOT consists of the slands of the Chagos Archipelago. The right to live on the islands of the Chagos ... from Mauritius and the Seychelles and formed into another, separate dependent territory. It was recognised that the ...The Order also provided for a general continuance in force of the existing laws applicable in the ... a writ in the High Court in London against the Attorney General, for the Secretaries of State for Defence and for ......
-
The High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukkaram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad and Others (Defendants/Interpleader Claimants) National Westminster Bank Plc (Defendant/Stakeholder)
...on the judgment of Ouseley J in Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General and Her Majesty's British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB) at [599], where he dismissed as unarguable the proposition that "the Court could suspend the effect of the Act where it would be uncons......
-
The High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukarram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad
...expressed by Ouseley J in Chagos Islanders v. The Attorney General and Her Majesty's British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner, [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB) at [599], where he dismissed as unarguable the proposition that “the Court could suspend the effect of the Act where it would be unconscio......
-
Howell Evans and Others v David Edward Rees Lloyd and Another
..."needs to be judged in the light of the transaction in question and of the documentation which it involves": per Ouseley J in Chagos Islanders v Attorney General [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB) at para 559. 49 The second requirement is explained in Snell's Equity at para 8–038: "It must be establishe......
-
The conflict between development and the right of the child to health.
...Canada, Comm. No. 167/1984, [paragraph] 2.3, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984, (Mar. 26, 1990); Chagos Islanders v. Attorney General, [2003] EWHC (QB) 2222, [98]; Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303 F.3d 470, 473 (2d Cir. 2002); Bancoult v. McNamara, 370 F. Supp. 2d. 1,2-3 (D.D.C. 2004); Jota v. Tex......
-
THE UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS DOCTRINE IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA: COUSINS OR SIBLINGS?
...and Perram JJ). (102) Bigwood, 'Contracts by Unfair Advantage' (n 3) 70-1 (emphasis in original). See also Chagos Islanders v A-G [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB), [562] (Ouseley (103) Amadio (n 2) 474 (Deane J). See also Louth (n 2) 626 (Brennan J) (emphasis added): there must be 'a relationship betw......