Two linked judicial review claims brought by Chagossian British citizens will come before the High Court in London on Tuesday, 28 October 2025.
The cases challenge UK Government decisions affecting Chagossians due to the lack of consultation about giving away their ancestral home; the Chagos Islands (BIOT).
The proceedings — R (Mandarin) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (AC-2025-LON-002073) and R (Pompe) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (AC-2025-LON-001642) — will be heard together in the Administrative Court, King’s Bench Division, at an oral permission hearing estimated to last two hours.
The Mandarin’s legal effort has been enabled by public support championed by the Great British PAC. Tens of thousands of pounds have been donated by Great British PAC members and donors. £10,000 was also personally donated by Great British PAC Chairman / Advance UK leader Ben Habib.
Great British CEO Claire Bullivant said: “For decades the Chagossians have been treated shamefully — displaced from their homeland and denied the fairness they deserve. This hearing is a crucial step toward righting that historic wrong. Thanks to hundreds of supporters and the extraordinary generosity of our donors, including our Chairman Ben Habib, we’ve helped get this case before the High Court. We are determined to see the Government finally follow the law, act with integrity, and treat the Chagossian people with the justice and respect long denied to them.”
Counsel for the claimants include Philip Rule KC, James Tumbridge (for the Mandarins) and Michael Polak (for Ms Pompe).
What the case is about:
The claimants — Chagossians and British citizens who want to remain British — argue that the UK Government has failed to:
- – Consult them properly on resettlement, rights of abode, fishing and related interests;
- – Consider their rights fairly and rationally, especially now that national security is no longer relied upon to justify exclusion from the outer islands;
- – Properly Discharge the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED);
- – Act with procedural fairness connected to the right of self-determination; and
- – Comply with human-rights obligations affecting British citizens.
It is not about overturning the Treaty: The applications do not seek to set aside the May 2025 UK–Mauritius treaty. They focus on UK domestic decisions within the UK’s control and jurisdiction that materially affect Chagossians.
Key Legal Grounds (as advanced by the claimants)
Ground 1 — Consultation duty
•The Government should have properly consulted Chagossians about resettlement, rights of abode, fishing rights and related decisions before acting.
•The claimants say the earlier paper decision misunderstood this ground as a challenge to whether to sign the treaty; it is not.
Ground 2 — Irrationality / failure to consider
•The Government failed to rationally consider Chagossian interests, especially given its position that national security no longer justifies excluding a civilian population from the outer islands.
•The Bancoult line of authorities shows such matters are amenable to judicial review and can be revisited when circumstances change.
Ground 3 — Equality duty (PSED)
•The Foreign Office referred to an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) but, the claimants say, has not provided it with the decision-making record.
•Withholding key documents breaches the duty of candour and impedes scrutiny of whether the PSED was discharged.
•The claimants rely on authorities including Tweed, R (Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland) v Police Superintendents’ Association, and National Bank of Anguilla, which emphasise that withholding crucial material can itself justify granting permission.
Ground 4 — ECHR Article 14 (discrimination)
•Even if BIOT falls outside the Human Rights Act scheme, these are UK decisions affecting British citizens; discrimination arguments under Article 14 therefore still apply.
Ground 5 — Procedural fairness / self-determination
•There should have been a fair process (e.g., consultation, survey or referendum) to ascertain Chagossians’ views on issues fundamentally affecting them.
Ground 6 — Article 8 (private and family life)
•Decisions impact visits to ancestral graves, family connections and cultural life.
•Even if Article 8 does not confer a “land right,” it requires fair procedures before decisions that significantly affect private/family life.
What Tuesday’s hearing is about
This is an oral permission hearing. The claimants are not asking the Court to decide the full judicial review yet; they are asking the judge to confirm the claim is arguable and merits a full hearing.
They rely on Ramdass v Minister of Finance [2025] UKPC 4, which confirms the permission threshold is low and should be refused only where the Government can show a “clear knockout blow.”
Why the claimants say permission should be granted:
•The legal threshold is low and the grounds are carefully reasoned with strong authority.
•The Government’s non-disclosure of key documents (including the EIA) weighs in favour of permission.
•The case raises important public-interest and human-rights issues.
Statement from Misley Mandarin, British Chagossian Claimant:
“As British Chagossians, we are not Mauritian — we are proud to be British, we want to be consulted about our homeland on the Chagos Islands. Why does our minority community not count? Are we not as worthy as Mauritians? Why were we not asked if we wanted to remain British?
Our case is about fairness and recognition. For decades, our people have been treated as if our voices and rights don’t matter. The Government has made decisions about our future without properly consulting us, and even failed to disclose key documents such as the Equality Impact Assessment — a report that should have shown how its policies affect our community – this was only disclosed after pressure from our legal team shortly ahead of the hearing. That kind of secrecy is deeply unfair, and I hope the courts take a very dim view of it.
The legal test at this stage is low — the judge simply has to see that the case is arguable. Justice demands we be heard, I hope the judge agrees.
We are standing up for our community, our identity, and we want to be heard. But only a judge gets to decide if we are worthy of being heard.”
Spokesperson for the Claimants’ legal team said:
“Legally this is about ensuring the Government follows lawful process and equality duties, morally it is about treating the affected people with respect. With national security no longer relied upon to bar resettlement in principle, it is time for proper consultation, transparency and fair consideration of Chagossian rights.”
About Great British PAC
Great British PAC (Political Action Committee) is a cross-party, UK-based organisation supporting people that want public-interest legal actions and civic accountability campaigns.
Case References
•R (Mandarin) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs — AC-2025-LON-002073
•R (Pompe) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs — AC-2025-LON-001642
•Court: High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
•Hearing: Oral permission (combined), 10.30am Tuesday, 28 October 2025; estimated 2 hours
Independent live 2 mins ago. PRINCE ANDREW LATEST: ANDREW HOSTED EPSTEIN AT ROYAL LODGE ‘DAYS BEFORE HIS ARREST’