R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 35[1] was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that affirmed the decision of the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) despite new evidence subsequently coming to light.[2] The case dismissed an attempt to set aside R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 on the grounds that the British government had failed to disclose a feasibility study relating to the Chagos Islands.

Not to be confused with R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2).
R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameR (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Argued22 June 2015
Decided29 June 2016
Neutral citation[2016] UKSC 35
Case history
Prior action(s)[2008] UKHL 61
Holding
The decision in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 would not be set aside.
Case opinions
MajorityLord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke
DissentLady Hale, Lord Kerr
Area of law
Judicial review; British Overseas Territories

See also

References
  1. "R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Respondent)". The Supreme Court. Retrieved 19 November 2017.
  2. Ruck Keene, Dominic (6 July 2016). "Another door closes for the Chagossians". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 6 October 2016.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.