Celebrating Pro Bono Week: Supporting the UK’s Chagossian Community
This post is a component of a series celebrating unpaid Week 2019 within the UK, which runs from 4 to eight November this year, providing a chance to encourage, recognise and celebrate the work of lawyers who volunteer their services for free of charge to those that wouldn't otherwise afford legal advice.
We have an extended and proud tradition of engaging in community and unpaid work across the globe; giving back isn't just a side note for us, it's one among our core values. We recognise we are fortunate to possess opportunities which we've a requirement to share our talent and skills to assist others find theirs. To celebrate the contribution of our staff and charity partners in furthering this goal and inspiring others to participate, this unpaid Week we are highlighting our unpaid initiatives during this Fragomen Gives Back blog series.
I highlighted in an earlier post our work with the united kingdom Chagos Support Association and Henry Smith MP to supply drafting and legal advice in reference to a personal Members Bill that might address a defect in British Nationality law. Unless this defect is addressed, the youngsters of second-generation Chagossians who have joined their parents within the UK might be under threat of deportation.
Since my original post in March 2018, there are a couple of developments.
ICJ Ruling
In February 2019 the International Court of Justice has given its ruling on the UK’s separation of British Indian Ocean Territory from (what was then) Mauritius colony. The Mauritian government argued that its consent to the separation given in 1965 was tainted by coercion. the united kingdom records referenced within the court proceedings confirm that, shamefully, the united kingdom threatened to withhold or delay Mauritian independence should it not comply with the separation.
The United Kingdom’s record of this conversation records Prime Minister Wilson having told Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam that:
in theory, there have been several possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. the simplest solution of all could be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he couldn't in fact commit the Colonial Secretary at now .
The UK had been determined to get consent (including by duress) because it had been clear that the deliberate dismemberment of a colony in preparation for independence was unlawful. In 1960 the overall Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This resolution would be worth quoting in its entirety, but the relevant section is:
… 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which haven't yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of these territories, with none conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire…
6. Any attempt aimed toward the partial or total disruption of the national unity and therefore the territorial integrity of a rustic is incompatible with the needs and principles of the Charter of the United Nations .
The ICJ found that:
The process of decolonization of Mauritius wasn't lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence which the uk is under an obligation to bring back an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
The UK government has responded by emphasising that this was “not a legally binding judgment.” within the face of such a transparent factual finding from the court, this position seems hard to take care of .
Where does the ICJ judgment leave the argument for the Nationality Bill? It strengthens and extends it, reaffirming once more that the depopulation of the islands wasn't only “regrettable,” because the UK government has said on many occasions, but unlawful. The Court of Appeal had already confirmed in 2000 (case of R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2001] QB 1067 that British order (the 1971 Immigration Ordinance) excluding the islanders from their homes was unlawful. The ICJ judgement undermines the lawfulness of the separation itself (effected by British Indian Ocean Territory Order 1965 (S.I. 1965/1920)) and therefore the legal basis of any purported administration of the islands. this is able to include both the 1971 Immigration Ordinance, also because the subsequent 2004 Order in Council which replaced it.
British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill
Following the government’s recent defeat within the Supreme Court, a brief prorogation of Parliament happened from 8 to 14 October. This had the effect of stopping any pending legislation, and thus delivered to an end the passage of the Bill. It remains hospitable the united kingdom government to sort this problem out at any time by including the relevant provisions during a future Immigration Bill once the new Parliament is made
Pro bono
On a private level, Fragomen has assisted Jeanette Valentin in regularising the position of her two daughters within the UK; her story has previously been reported within the Guardian. Jeanette’s mother was born on Diego Garcia, and had it been possible for her to stay , so would Jeanette. Therefore, although Jeanette may be a British citizen, her daughters are unable to say British nationality as an immediate results of the exclusion. Jeanette had been unable to afford the massive headquarters fees for creating an application to regularise their immigration, until her case came to public attention and she or he was ready to raise 8,000 pounds in donations from sympathetic members of the general public . At now , her eldest daughter had already turned 18. We assisted in making an application on a discretionary basis, and are delighted to report that the house Office has agreed to exercise discretion within the circumstances of the case, and both Jeanette’s daughters are granted permanent residence within the UK. This removes the threat of deportation and enables them to plan for further study to support their ambitions.
I’m grateful to Fragomen for agreeing to support this work and, especially Ian Robinson, for connecting us with senior contacts to assist resolve the matter with the authorities. i might also wish to thank Jeanette for putting her trust in us to handle the case. We wish all of them the simplest for the longer term .
We have an extended and proud tradition of engaging in community and unpaid work across the globe; giving back isn't just a side note for us, it's one among our core values. We recognise we are fortunate to possess opportunities which we've a requirement to share our talent and skills to assist others find theirs. To celebrate the contribution of our staff and charity partners in furthering this goal and inspiring others to participate, this unpaid Week we are highlighting our unpaid initiatives during this Fragomen Gives Back blog series.
I highlighted in an earlier post our work with the united kingdom Chagos Support Association and Henry Smith MP to supply drafting and legal advice in reference to a personal Members Bill that might address a defect in British Nationality law. Unless this defect is addressed, the youngsters of second-generation Chagossians who have joined their parents within the UK might be under threat of deportation.
Since my original post in March 2018, there are a couple of developments.
ICJ Ruling
In February 2019 the International Court of Justice has given its ruling on the UK’s separation of British Indian Ocean Territory from (what was then) Mauritius colony. The Mauritian government argued that its consent to the separation given in 1965 was tainted by coercion. the united kingdom records referenced within the court proceedings confirm that, shamefully, the united kingdom threatened to withhold or delay Mauritian independence should it not comply with the separation.
The United Kingdom’s record of this conversation records Prime Minister Wilson having told Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam that:
in theory, there have been several possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. the simplest solution of all could be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he couldn't in fact commit the Colonial Secretary at now .
The UK had been determined to get consent (including by duress) because it had been clear that the deliberate dismemberment of a colony in preparation for independence was unlawful. In 1960 the overall Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This resolution would be worth quoting in its entirety, but the relevant section is:
… 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which haven't yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of these territories, with none conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire…
6. Any attempt aimed toward the partial or total disruption of the national unity and therefore the territorial integrity of a rustic is incompatible with the needs and principles of the Charter of the United Nations .
The ICJ found that:
The process of decolonization of Mauritius wasn't lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence which the uk is under an obligation to bring back an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
The UK government has responded by emphasising that this was “not a legally binding judgment.” within the face of such a transparent factual finding from the court, this position seems hard to take care of .
Where does the ICJ judgment leave the argument for the Nationality Bill? It strengthens and extends it, reaffirming once more that the depopulation of the islands wasn't only “regrettable,” because the UK government has said on many occasions, but unlawful. The Court of Appeal had already confirmed in 2000 (case of R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2001] QB 1067 that British order (the 1971 Immigration Ordinance) excluding the islanders from their homes was unlawful. The ICJ judgement undermines the lawfulness of the separation itself (effected by British Indian Ocean Territory Order 1965 (S.I. 1965/1920)) and therefore the legal basis of any purported administration of the islands. this is able to include both the 1971 Immigration Ordinance, also because the subsequent 2004 Order in Council which replaced it.
British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill
Following the government’s recent defeat within the Supreme Court, a brief prorogation of Parliament happened from 8 to 14 October. This had the effect of stopping any pending legislation, and thus delivered to an end the passage of the Bill. It remains hospitable the united kingdom government to sort this problem out at any time by including the relevant provisions during a future Immigration Bill once the new Parliament is made
Pro bono
On a private level, Fragomen has assisted Jeanette Valentin in regularising the position of her two daughters within the UK; her story has previously been reported within the Guardian. Jeanette’s mother was born on Diego Garcia, and had it been possible for her to stay , so would Jeanette. Therefore, although Jeanette may be a British citizen, her daughters are unable to say British nationality as an immediate results of the exclusion. Jeanette had been unable to afford the massive headquarters fees for creating an application to regularise their immigration, until her case came to public attention and she or he was ready to raise 8,000 pounds in donations from sympathetic members of the general public . At now , her eldest daughter had already turned 18. We assisted in making an application on a discretionary basis, and are delighted to report that the house Office has agreed to exercise discretion within the circumstances of the case, and both Jeanette’s daughters are granted permanent residence within the UK. This removes the threat of deportation and enables them to plan for further study to support their ambitions.
I’m grateful to Fragomen for agreeing to support this work and, especially Ian Robinson, for connecting us with senior contacts to assist resolve the matter with the authorities. i might also wish to thank Jeanette for putting her trust in us to handle the case. We wish all of them the simplest for the longer term .
Comments
Post a Comment