The UK Supreme Court today delivered its latest judgment in the
Bancoult case, holding by a 3 to 2 majority that its previous decision
in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61, [2009] AC 453 ought not to be set aside
because of culpable (but not deliberate) nondisclosure of relevant
documents by the UK Government in those proceedings.

At first pass, the judgments differ more about the application of the
relevant principles to the facts of the particular case than the
principles themselves, though perhaps Lady Hale (dissenting) does
express a slightly different test, when she holds that in the
circumstances, the Court "should not take much convincing that their
disclosure might have made a difference to the decision in the case."

I'm conscious that this may not be of central relevance to this list
(my apologies if the view is that it is not) and certainly isn't the
appropriate forum for expression of my personal views in any detail
but given the particular circumstances I thought it might be of
interest to some on the list.

Suffice it to say that I think the dissenting opinions far preferable,
both on the facts and as a matter of constitutional principle in any
country where the rule of law is taken seriously.

As for the Chagossians, who have again lost in the ultimate appellate
Court of the UK by a 3 2 majority, are still without a homeland after
all these years and who must feel that had the UK Government followed
its own law in the original judicial review proceedings things might
have been different, I guess they can but read this and weep.

Why this case (or the original proceedings for that matter) were
considered suitable for a 5 judge Court escapes me at least (though I
accept that a greater number of judges might not have altered the
result).

Kind regards

Ger

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/35.html