Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory (Appellant) v VT and others (Respondents) (British Indian Ocean Territory)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0026

Jurisdiction

British Indian Ocean Territory

Parties

Appellant(s)

HM Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory

Respondent(s)

JS and RG, KP

AAA and ZZZ (by her litigation friend AAA), AAB, AAC, AAD, AAG

Issue

The claimant asylum seekers arrived without authorisation in British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”). While in BIOT, their movements were heavily restricted. The claimants brought proceedings against the Commissioner of BIOT under the tort of false imprisonment. (1) For the purposes of BIOT law, should the tort of false imprisonment be adapted to reflect the fact that BIOT is a secure military base with no permanent population? (2) If the restrictions on the claimants’ movements amounted to imprisonment, what is the scope of the defence of necessity and were the restrictions on the claimants’ movements ‘necessary’ in the relevant sense? (4) Was the Restriction of Movement Order 2024 an unreasonable exercise of the Commissioner’s power to make orders under the BIOT Constitution and therefore ultra vires? (5) Did the Supreme Court of BIOT err by giving insufficient weight to evidence as to the unique security situation in BIOT? (6) Was the BIOT Court of Appeal wrong to hold that none of questions (1)-(5) raised ‘any genuinely disputable issue’ and consequently refuse the Commissioner permission to appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Facts

British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”) is a British Overseas Territory which hosts a highly sensitive and strategically important US-UK military base. BIOT has no permanent population. Its population normally consists solely of British and American military personnel and contractors. The appellant, the Commissioner for British Indian Ocean Territory (“the Commissioner”), both governs the territory and legislates for it. Between 2020 and 2022, seven boats carrying a total of 349 Sri Lankan citizens arrived on Diego Garcia, BIOT’s only inhabited island. The passengers maintained that they were seeking to reach Canada and had arrived in BIOT by chance. Some of these Sri Lankan citizens sought to claim asylum in BIOT. The present respondents are thirteen of these asylum seekers. The authorities in BIOT provided the Sri Lankan migrants with accommodation and certain other amenities. The asylum seekers were only permitted to leave this accommodation and visit other parts of the island occasionally and under close supervision. They were however permitted to leave the territory, either by air to Sri Lanka or by boat to anywhere else they wished to go. The majority (285 out of 349) opted to leave by one of these routes. Most of the remainder, including the eleven of the respondents, were eventually moved to the UK in 2024. The two remaining claimants are now lawfully detained in prison in Montserrat and BIOT serving sentences for sexual offences and various other crimes. The Commissioner maintained that the restrictions were necessary because the free moment of uncleared foreign civilians around BIOT was a serious security risk. Moreover, a working military base was considered to be an unsafe environment for the appellants. The present respondents brought a claim against the Commissioner in the tort of false imprisonment. They argue that the Commissioner had no legal basis for restricting their movements around the island. The Commissioner argued that the claimants had not been detained. In the alternative, the Commissioner submitted that the restrictions on the claimants’ movements were necessary for their safety and US-UK national security. Overall, the Commissioner said that the tort of false imprisonment needed to be applied in light of the conditions prevailing in BIOT, namely that it was a secure military base with no civilian population. The Supreme Court of BIOT held that the thirteen claimants had been unlawfully detained and that no defence of necessity was available to the Commissioner. This conclusion was upheld, with slight modifications, on appeal by the territory’s Court of Appeal. The Commissioner applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Court of Appeal denied permission to appeal on the basis that none of the Commissioner’s grounds raised a genuinely disputable issue. The Commissioner now seeks special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. This is the first application for permission to appeal to the Privy Council from BIOT.