BAA & Ors v Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration & Ors

31 March 2023

[2023] EWHC 767 (KB)

High Court

Five people who were rescued at sea and sent to a hospital in Rwanda for mental health issues wanted to stop being returned to a camp on a remote island. The judge said no, because keeping them in Rwanda might put them in more trouble and also hurt the UK's relationship with Rwanda.

Key Facts

•Five Sri Lankan Tamil claimants sought injunctive relief against the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) after being medically evacuated to Rwanda following self-harm incidents.
•Claimants were initially rescued at Diego Garcia after their boat encountered distress.
•The Refugee Convention does not apply to BIOT, but the Commissioner acknowledges the non-refoulement obligation under customary international law.
•Claimants allege inhumane conditions in the Diego Garcia camp, including limited sanitation, inadequate medical care, and instances of sexual assault.
•The UK government arranged medical evacuations to Rwanda, with an undertaking to return claimants to BIOT after treatment.
•Claimants sought an injunction preventing their return to BIOT or requiring at least five days' notice before any removal.
•The claimants argued that the BIOT Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum and that the UK court had jurisdiction due to the Commissioner’s presence in London and the involvement of the UK government.

Legal Principles

Constitutional status of British Overseas Territories

Hendry and Dickson, British Overseas Territories Law (2nd ed., 2018), p. 23; Quark Fishing Ltd v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2005] UKHL 57, [2006] 1 AC 529

Jurisdiction over the Crown

Crown Proceedings Act 1947; British Indian Ocean Territory Ordinance 1984; M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377

Forum non conveniens

Dicey, Morris and Collins (16th ed.), §11-042; Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex [1987] AC 460; Lungowe v Vedanta [2020] AC 1045; VTB Capital v Nutritek [2013] 2 AC 337

Public law vs. private law claims; O’Reilly v Mackman principle

O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237; Connor v Surrey County Council [2010] EWCA Civ, [2011] QB 429

American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions

American Cyanamid

Outcomes

Application dismissed

The court found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. The risk to claimants in Rwanda due to potential detention as illegal immigrants, coupled with the potential damage to UK-Rwanda relations and the disruption of medical evacuation services, outweighed the claimants' concerns about return to BIOT.

BAA & Ors v Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration & Ors

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

AAA (Syria) & Ors., R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

E, Z, D, V (Inherent Jurisdiction: Refusal of Return Order), Re

RMO v Secretary Of State for the Home Department

Rawle Ganpot & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department