“Who Knew, and When?” Questions Grow Over Chagos Judgment Timing

Questions are mounting over the handling of a High Court judgment in the Chagos case after the Ministry of Justice confirmed that key information about the timing of the decision is not accessible through Freedom of Information laws.

The ruling, handed down on 10 March, related to the first Judicial Review brought on behalf of British Chagossians, supported and organised by the Great British PAC, which sought to establish that they must be consulted and have a right to self-determination over the future of their homeland.

The case was heard last year on 28 October 2025 after the court had earlier recognised its urgency and abridged the timetable. However, judgment was not delivered for more than four months. In her ruling, Mrs Justice Stacey cited health issues and workload pressures for the delay.

During that period, political developments relating to the Chagos Islands continued. Parliamentary processes progressed, sovereignty negotiations advanced, and public debate intensified, raising concerns among campaigners that legal scrutiny risked being overtaken by events.

This case should not be confused with a separate, more recent Judicial Review, also supported by the Great British PAC, in which Chagossians have now successfully secured the right to remain on the islands.

Further attention has focused on remarks made prior to the judgment by Mauritian Attorney General Gavin Glover, who indicated that the decision would be delivered imminently. His comments, made on 6 March, suggested awareness of the timing of the ruling before any formal notification had been widely circulated to parties.

The remarks prompted a straightforward question: how could a foreign government’s Attorney General appear to know when a UK High Court judgment would be delivered in a case involving British citizens and the UK Government?

Courts typically communicate judgment hand-down dates directly to the parties involved. The source of the information referenced by Mr Glover has not been publicly explained.

A Freedom of Information request submitted to the Ministry of Justice sought clarification on when the judgment date was set and how it was communicated. In its response, the Ministry confirmed that such information, if held, sits within court records rather than administrative systems, placing it outside the scope of FOI disclosure.

The Ministry advised that any such information can only be accessed through court-controlled records. As a result, further enquiries are now being directed to the Administrative Court itself.

Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC, said:

“This situation raises serious and legitimate questions. The court itself recognised the historic injustice faced by the Chagossian people and the importance of the issues at stake, yet it then took more than four months to deliver a decision at what is meant to be a low-threshold permission stage.

“The outcome has left many asking how a case centred on whether a people should be consulted about the future of their own homeland was ultimately refused permission to proceed.

“It is also difficult to understand how a foreign government’s Attorney General, actively involved in negotiations over the future of the Chagos Islands, appeared to have insight into the timing of the judgment before those directly involved in the case.

“There may be explanations, but taken together, the delay, the timing, and the sequence of events raise understandable concerns. In a case of this magnitude, transparency is essential to maintaining confidence in the process.”

There may be entirely routine explanations for the sequence of events. However, given the legal, political and international significance of the case, observers say clarity would help maintain confidence in the judicial process.

The focus now turns to whether the court will provide further information about when the judgment date was determined, how it was communicated, and who was informed.

For now, two questions remain.

Why did a decision on what the courts describe as a low-threshold permission stage take more than four months to be delivered?

And how did knowledge of the likely timing of that decision appear to reach beyond the parties before it was formally communicated?

Until those questions are answered, scrutiny of the case is unlikely to subside.

The Great British PAC has now written to the King’s Bench Division seeking clarification on when the judgment date was determined, how it was communicated, and who was informed.