Richard III and Chagossian judicial review claims all dismissed

23 May 2014 by

p180vajuda12ijjc57ac1qhh37s1The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for Justice and others [2014] EWHC 1662 (QB) 23 May 2014 – read judgment

The facts of this application for judicial review were set out in David Hart QC’s post on the original permission hearing. To recap briefly, the Plantagenet Alliance, a campaigning organisation representing a group of collateral descendants of Richard III were given the go ahead to seek judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents – the Secretary of State, Leicester Council and Leicester University, regarding his re-interment at Leicester Cathedral without consulting them. More specifically, the claimant’s main case was that there was an obligation, principally on the part of the Ministry of Justice, to revisit or reconsider the licence once the remains had been conclusively identified as those of Richard III.

The Divisional Court (of three judges) unanimously rejected this argument on all grounds. It could not be said in public law terms that the Secretary of State failed to act as a reasonable or rational decision-maker when deciding not to revisit the exhumation licence in the light of the information which he already had. The Court hammered the final nail  on the consultation coffin by declaring that there was

no sensible basis for imposing a requirement for a general public consultation, with leaflets, on-line petitions, publicity campaigns, nor for advertisements trying to ascertain who is a relative and then weighing their views against the general public, when there are, in reality, only two possible contenders (Leicester and York)

A short summary of the decision in Bancoult follows.

Bancoult v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs  [2014] EWCA Civ 708 – read judgmentchagos0island

David Hart has also posted on the various stages of the litigation arising out of the removal and subsequent exclusion of the native population from the Chagos Archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory: see here, herehere and here. This appeal against the rejection of their claims by the Divisional Court was based on three grounds:

The FCO’s decision was unlawful because (i) it was actuated by an improper motive, namely an intention to prevent Chagossians and their descendants from resettling in the BIOT; (ii) the consultation paper which preceded the decision failed to disclose that the Marine Protected Area proposal, in so far as it prohibited all fishing, would adversely affect the traditional and historical rights of Chagossians to fish in the waters of their homeland, as both Mauritian citizens and as the native population of the Chagos Islands; and (iii) it was in breach of the obligations imposed on the United Kingdom under article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal on all three grounds.  The Master of the Rolls, giving judgment, found that there was no basis for overturning the Divisional Court’s conclusion that the MPA was not actuated by the improper motive of intending to create an effective long-term way to prevent Chagossians and their descendants from resettling in the BIOT. The consultation argument was roundly dismissed: the Court concluded that in reality, the terms of the consultation paper offered a clear opportunity to the Chagossians, and indeed to anyone else, to canvas the alleged fishing rights of the Chagossians as traditionally enjoyed and their alleged entitlement to preserve their historic links with, and knowledge of, fishing in Chagos Islands waters.

The Court was also of the view that the Divisional Court had been entitled to reach the factual conclusions that it did. It undertook a careful evaluation of the evidence and concluded that there were actually no Chagossian fishing activities at all when the MPA was imposed. Nor could there have been any possible breach of article 4(3) of the TEU. They did not accept that the loss of some local fishing knowledge held by a few individuals can amount to a violation of the EU objectives of promoting economic, social or cultural development.

A full analysis of both these interesting judgments, covering a wide range of topics from the public duty to consult and common law fairness,  will follow from David Hart Q.C. in the next few days.

 

3 comments


  1. dizzy999 says:

    Let’s throw common sense out of the window and stick with unfair laws!!!

  2. dw says:

    Goodbye, “Plantagenet Alliance”. You won’t be missed.

    There should be a higher bar to filing a lawsuit than merely holding an opinion.

  3. Mary Walker says:

    From a legal standpoint, I have to assume the court’s ruling on the challenge by the Plantagenet Alliance is correct.

    From a personal point of view I think it is tragic, frankly, that a King of England is treated like any other archaeological find, where no identification of remains is considered likely to occur.

    An exhumation licence is pretty basic and the clause for reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground is presumptive of unidentified remains.

    Richard III did a lot in his short reign for his subjects. He lowered taxes and introduced the Medieval equivalent of Legal Aid amongst other things.

    I think he deserves a very regal burial and I sincerely hope that Leicester meets the challenge.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: