“The refusal to release basic court materials from a public hearing raises alarm bells about judicial accountability and potential executive pressure” says Claire Bullivant, Editor-in-Chief, Conservative Post.
The Royal Courts of Justice is facing serious questions over transparency and potential obstruction, as it continues to withhold case files from a recent judicial review hearing concerning the Chagossian people, despite that hearing having taken place in open court.
The issue centres around an urgent hearing held on 22 May 2025, regarding the UK Government’s controversial deal with Mauritius over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. While the deal, signed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has already drawn widespread criticism, a second judicial review is now being launched with the aim of proving the agreement was made unlawfully.
However, in a development raising serious transparency concerns, the Royal Courts of Justice is refusing to release the court bundle from the earlier May hearing — a move that critics say may be aimed at running down the clock before the new judicial review can be properly filed.
A Public Hearing, But No Public Access?
As a journalist attempting to report on the case, I requested access to the relevant materials under Civil Procedure Rule 5.4C, which allows non-parties to obtain court documents from public proceedings. Instead, I received an email from Titu Miah of the Administrative Court Office rejecting the request on the grounds that:
“There are no Acknowledgement of Service filed, neither listed for a hearing or a Judgement has entered.”
This is factually inaccurate. There was a hearing on 22 May, a judgment issued, and an active case file, confirmed by coverage in the media and legal sources at the proceedings. The file, while urgent and therefore not standard in structure, is undoubtedly real, active, and covered by access rules for open justice.
What’s more troubling is that an initial rejection email from the court bizarrely advised me to “try again in a month’s time” — which would, conveniently, be after the deadline to file the new judicial review. When pressed, the court then appeared to deny that the case had even occurred, contradicting the public record and official court activity.
Playing Down the Clock?
Campaigners and legal observers are increasingly concerned that the court’s failure to provide access may not be mere disorganisation, but rather a deliberate effort to obstruct or delay scrutiny of the original case, especially given the political sensitivity of the Chagos deal.
With legal efforts now underway to challenge the lawfulness of the UK’s agreement with Mauritius, transparency around past proceedings is essential. The refusal to release basic court materials from a public hearing raises alarm bells about judicial accountability and potential executive pressure.
Why This Matters
Although Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already signed the Chagos deal, it still requires ratification by Parliament. This new legal challenge could carry significant constitutional consequences. If the courts find that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully in signing the agreement, it would cast serious doubt on its legitimacy. Many MPs may be unwilling to endorse a deal tainted by legal flaws, and those who do vote to ratify it risk backing an agreement that could ultimately be ruled invalid, with profound legal and political repercussions.
The courts are meant to function as a neutral arbiter, safeguarding democratic oversight. But when court officials give inaccurate information and delay the release of public records, it undermines trust not only in the legal process, but in the integrity of the state itself.
The Royal Courts of Justice has been contacted for clarification. At the time of publication, no satisfactory explanation or release of documents has been received.
By Claire Bullivant, Editor
For further information or comment, please contact: editor@conservativepost.co.uk
Main image made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
