CP
“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: [email protected]
Main image made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
This article (Royal Courts of Justice Accused of Withholding Files on Chagos Case Amid New Judicial Review Effort) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
Featured image: x.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply