![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
British Indian Ocean Territory Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> British Indian Ocean Territory Judgments >> Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory v VT & Ors, R (On the Application Of) (Re Application for Permission to Appeal) [2025] BIOT CA (Civ) 1a (06 February 2026) URL: https://www.bailii.org/io/cases/BIOT/2025/CA1A.html Cite as: [2025] BIOT CA (Civ) 1a |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MARGARET OBI, SITTING AS AN ACTING JUDGE BIOT SC/15/2023 AND BIOT SC/16/2023
United Kingdom |
||
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE LANE, JA
THE HON. MRS JUSTICE PLIMMER, JA
THE HON. MRS JUSTICE NOTT, JA
THE HON. MRS JUSTICE PLIMMER, JA
____________________
| THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY |
||
| - v - |
||
| THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF VT & Ors) |
||
(APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL) |
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:00am UK time on 6 February 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail.
Mr. Justice Lane, JA
Background
The Judgment of the Supreme Court
1. VT was unlawfully detained from his arrival on Diego Garcia on 3 October 2021 until 21 March 2024, when he was detained in criminal custody. He was further unlawfully detained after he was released from criminal custody on 31 May 2024 until he was sentenced to immediate custody on 1 November 2024.
2. KP was unlawfully detained from his arrival on Diego Garcia on October 2021 until he was sentenced to immediate custody on 16 October 2024.
3. RG was unlawfully detained from his arrival on Diego Garcia on 10 April 2022 until he left for the United Kingdom on 2 December 2024.
4. AAA and ZZZ were unlawfully detained from their arrival on Diego Garcia on 3 October 2O2l until they were medically evacuated to Rwanda on 9 June 2024.
5. All of the other Claimants were unlawfully detained from their arrival on Diego Garcia on 3 October 202I until they left for the United Kingdom on 2 December 2024.
The Commissioner's appeal to the Court of Appeal
The British Indian Ocean Territory (Appeals to Privy Council) Order 1983
3. Subject to the provisions of this Order, an appeal shall lie
(a) as of right from any final judgment, where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of £5000 or upwards, or where the appeal involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the said value or upwards; and
(b) at the discretion of the court, from any other judgment, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court, the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its great or general importance or otherwise, ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision.
Section 6 provides:
6. A single judge of the Court shall have power and jurisdiction:
(a) to hear and determine any application to the Court for leave to appeal in any case where under any provision of law an appeal lies as of right from a decision of the Court;
(b) generally in respect of any appeal pending before Her Majesty in Council, to make such order and to give such other directions as he shall consider the interests of justice or circumstances of the case require:
Provided that any order, directions or decision made or given in pursuance of this section may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Court when consisting of three judges which may include the judge who made or gave the order, directions or decision.
The Commissioner's submissions on the 1983 Order
The Claimants' Submissions on the 1983 Order
5. Indeed, it is well established in recent decisions of the Privy Council that "an appellant's appeal as of right does not mean that the Court of Appeal has no control over the appeal" (A v R (Guernsey) [2018] UKPC 4, §8). The local court of appeal "has a right to police applications of this kind and to consider whether any proposed appeal raises a genuinely disputable issue" (Meyer v Baynes (Antigua and Barbuda) [2019] UKPC 3, §23). Asking whether there is a genuinely disputable issue is the same as asking "whether the appeal is devoid of merit and has no prospect of success" (Hawkins v Abarbanel Ltd (Cayman Islands) [2026] 1 WLR 115,
§§63(v)-(vi), 64).
Discussion
(ii) that any damages awarded will exceed the £5,000 threshold. Accordingly, it is clear that the Commissioner's appeal satisfies the requirements of section 3(a) the 1983 Order.
(and, in turn, Alleyne-Forte v A-G ). At [23] it held:
The Board considers that this reasoning is also applicable to appeals from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda). Mr Meyer made an entirely proper application to the Court of Appeal by notice of motion for leave to appeal. But the Court of Appeal has a right to police applications of this kind and to consider whether any proposed appeal raises a genuinely disputable issue. In this case the Court of Appeal exercised that right, refused leave to appeal and dismissed the application. In so doing, it did not exceed its jurisdiction, and it made no error in approaching the application in the way that it did. [my emphasis]
The Court of Appeal's determination of the Commissioner's application for leave to appeal to the JCPC
The Commissioner's grounds of appeal
Conclusion
Decision certified as appropriate for reporting
The President
Mrs. Justice Nott, JA
Note 1 The parties before the Court of Appeal agreed that RMO 2023 was a nullity by reason of procedural irregularity. [Back]