Chagos Islands overnight injunction discharged by High Court judge
The deal, which would see Britain give up sovereignty of the island territory to Mauritius and lease back a crucial military base there, was due to be signed on Thursday morning but was temporarily blocked by an injunction hours before.
Mr Justice Goose granted an injunction at 2.25am against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for 'interim relief' to Bertrice Pompe, one of two British women born on the Chagos Islands who is set to bring legal action against the Government over the deal.
After an urgent hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the injunction should be discharged.
He said: 'I have concluded that the stay granted by Mr Justice Goose should be discharged and there should be no further interim relief.'
He later said: 'The public interest and the interests of the United Kingdom would be substantially prejudiced by the grant or continuance of interim relief, and these matters provide a strong public interest reason against the continuance of interim relief.'
Bertice Pompe (left) and Bernadette Dugasse outside the High Court in central London (Yui Mok/PA)
The Government welcomed the ruling, saying the agreement is 'vital to protect the British people and our national security'.
Philip Rule KC, for Ms Pompe, asked Mr Justice Chamberlain whether he would stay the effect of his ruling to allow for any application to the Court of Appeal.
The judge refused this request, adding: 'The order is discharged from this point onwards. If you want to seek any further relief you will have to go to the Court of Appeal.'
Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Defence Secretary John Healey is expected to make a Commons statement on Thursday about the 'future of the Diego Garcia military base'.
Ms Powell said the statement would take place 'probably at the end of business', which would suggest a 5pm start time.
During the hearing Mr Justice Chamberlain, summarising a document given to the court by the Government, said: 'The agreement can be concluded today and it does not necessarily have to be at 9am.'
He then asked Sir James Eadie KC, for the FCDO, whether 'the agreement can still be concluded if it is concluded today'.
Sir James confirmed that was the case.
He later said: 'My instructions from Number 10 are that we need a decision by 1pm today if we are to sign today, and everybody is standing by.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
28 minutes ago
- Daily Record
UK to build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines in major defence shake-up
The UK will build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and invest £15 billion in its warhead programme. The UK is poised to construct up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and will pour £15 billion into its warhead programme, with the Prime Minister set to disclose these plans on Monday during the Government's strategic defence review. Major investments are queued for the UK's nuclear warhead programme this parliamentary session, along with commitments to maintain the current arsenal, as supported by 62 recommendations the Government aims to fully implement. However, there's been a debate over defence spending promises, after the Defence Secretary was unable to verify if the Treasury had secured budgeting to increase it to 3% of GDP by 2034. Part of the Aukus deal with the US and Australia, the creation of these submarines is projected to sustain 30,000 highly skilled jobs into the 2030s, along with generating 30,000 apprenticeships and 14,000 graduate positions over the forthcoming decade, according to the Ministry of Defence. Defence Secretary John Healey remarked: "Our outstanding submariners patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe, but we know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression. "With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead programme on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad, while delivering on our Plan for Change with 30,000 highly skilled jobs across the country." The £15 billion investment into the warhead programme will bolster the Government's pledges to sustain the continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent, construct a new line of Dreadnought submarines, and facilitate all forthcoming enhancements. From the late 2030s, the array of up to 12 SSN-Aukus class attack submarines – conventionally armed yet nuclear-powered – are set to succeed the seven astute class submarines that the UK anticipates commissioning. The Government, in echoing the findings of the strategic defence review, has pledged to:. - Prepare the armed forces for readiness to engage in conflict should the need arise. - Enhance armament reserves and maintain scalability in production capacities to respond promptly in times of crisis or warfare. - Procure up to 7,000 domestically produced long-range missiles, a decision projected to preserve 800 jobs within the defence sector. - Establish a pioneering cyber command while committing £1 billion towards digital advancements. - Allocate an excess of £1.5 billion for refurbishing and updating service personnel accommodation. Sir Keir Starmer is expected to declare: "From the supply lines to the front lines, this Government is foursquare behind the men and women upholding our nation's freedom and security. "National security is the foundation of my Plan for Change, and this plan will ensure Britain is secure at home and strong abroad, while delivering a defence dividend of well-paid jobs up and down the country." The Shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, expressed scepticism regarding Labour's Strategic Defence Review promises, stating that they would be viewed with caution unless Labour could demonstrate that sufficient funding would be allocated. Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healey, had previously mentioned in an interview with The Times that there was "no doubt" the UK would achieve its goal of 3% defence spending. However, when questioned on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, he sidestepped queries about whether the Treasury had provided any guarantees for the necessary funding. Healey also acknowledged that he did not anticipate an increase in the number of armed forces personnel until the next Parliament, citing ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. When asked about the Army's target of 73,000 personnel, he replied, "We've narrowed the gap, but we've still got more people leaving than joining. "The first job is to reverse that trend and then I want to see in the next parliament our ability to start to increase the number." In response, James Cartlidge argued, "All of Labour's Strategic Defence Review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them. "Whereas, far from guaranteeing the funding, John Healey has been hung out to dry by Rachel Reeves. "As recently as Thursday, Healey promised that defence spending would definitely hit 3%, but today he's completely backtracked. "These submarines are not due to enter service till the late 2030s, so how can we have any confidence Labour will actually deliver them when they can't even sustain a policy on defence spending for more than 48 hours?" Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire commented: "This signals absolutely the right intent about the need to bolster the UK's defences in the face of Putin's imperialism and Trump's unreliability. "But this must come with a concrete commitment and detail on full funding. "Labour's mere 'ambition' rather than commitment to reach 3% of GDP on defence leaves serious questions about whether the money for these projects will actually be forthcoming. "The 2034 timeline suggests a worrying lack of urgency from the Government. "Unless Labour commits to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3% much more rapidly than the mid-2030s, this announcement risks becoming a damp squib."
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Families of 1994 Chinook crash victims to sue MoD after 29 died
They want a High Court judge to be able to review information which they say was not included in previous investigations, and which they believe will shed new light on the airworthiness of the helicopter. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2, 1994. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. READ MORE: Podcaster arrested after targeting councillor with racial abuse The families of the victims, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. In a letter to the Government 31 years after the crash, the group said: 'The investigations conducted to date, whether considered individually or in combination, have failed to discharge the investigative duty.' They have also called for the release of documents that were sealed at the time of the crash for 100 years, something revealed in a BBC documentary last year. Solicitor Mark Stephens, who is representing the families, said: 'In this case, the families of those who were killed have seen more than enough evidence to convince them, and us, that there was a failure by the MoD to apply appropriate safeguards in order to protect the passengers and crew. 'In fact, they were put on board an aircraft that was known to be positively dangerous and should never have taken off. 'That is why we are seeking a judicial review into the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry – which the families have sought for more than a year.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK Government 17 years later, following a campaign by the families. READ MORE: Hamilton by-election campaign enters final days as parties make final pleas to voters A subsequent review by Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash. Esme Sparks, who was seven years old when her father Major Gary Sparks was killed in the crash, said: 'We don't want to have to take legal action against the Government and MoD but we do want and need answers surrounding the circumstance of this crash. 'We want to know who or what is being protected? Who made the decision to let this helicopter take off? What is being hidden? In our view, a public inquiry is key.' Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father, Lt Col John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'It's clear to me that a complete lack of duty of care was given to those passengers because they got on a Chinook that wasn't fit for flight. 'And really, the government need to show their duty of candour and really be open and transparent about what's in those documents and give us the opportunity to really understand anything that's in them that could give us more answers about what happened.' The MoD said that records held in The National Archives contain personal information and early release of those documents would breach their data protection rights. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight
The fierce battle over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright - which pits the government against some of the biggest names in the creative industry - returns to the House of Lords on Monday with little sign of a solution in sight.A huge row has kicked off between ministers and peers who back the artists, and shows no sign of abating. It might be about AI but at its heart are very human issues: jobs and highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off. This is "unchartered territory", one source in the peers' camp told me. The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first sparked it is the uninspiringly-titled Data (Use and Access) proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of bill states that AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. Nearly 300 members of the House of Lords disagree. They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing Nick Clegg, former president of global affairs at Meta, is among those broadly supportive of the bill, arguing that asking permission from all copyright holders would "kill the AI industry in this country". Those against include Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, best known for making films such as Bridget Jones: The Edge of says ministers would be "knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus" if they don't move to protect their output from what she describes as "state sanctioned theft" from a UK industry worth £ asking for an amendment to the bill which includes Technology Secretary Peter Kyle giving a report to the House of Commons about the impact of the new law on the creative industries, three months after it comes into force, if it doesn't change. Mr Kyle also appears to have changed his views about UK copyright once said copyright law was "very certain", now he says it is "not fit for purpose".Perhaps to an extent both those things are Department for Science, Innovation and Technology say that they're carrying out a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes to the Bill unless they're completely satisfied that they work for creators. If the "ping pong" between the two Houses continues, there's a small chance the entire bill could be shelved; I'm told it's unlikely but not it does, some other important elements would go along with it, simply because they are part of the same bill. It also includes proposed rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die, changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily, and even a 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks (I told you it was a big bill).There is no easy answer. How did we get here? Here's how it all started. Initially, before AI exploded into our lives, AI developers scraped enormous quantities of content from the internet, arguing that it was in the public domain already and therefore freely available. We are talking about big, mainly US, tech firms here doing the scraping, and not paying for anything they hoovered they used that data to train the same AI tools now used by millions to write copy, create pictures and videos in seconds. These tools can also mimic popular musicians, writers, artists. For example, a recent viral trend saw people merrily sharing AI images generated in the style of the Japanese animation firm Studio founder of that studio meanwhile, had once described the use of AI in animation as "an insult to life itself". Needless to say, he was not a has been a massive backlash from many content creators and owners including household names like Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. They have argued that taking their work in this way, without consent, credit or payment, amounted to theft. And that artists are now losing work because AI tools can churn out similar content freely and quickly Elton John didn't hold back in a recent interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. He argued that the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", and described the current administration as "absolute losers".Others though point out that material made by the likes of Sir Elton is available worldwide. And if you make it too hard for AI companies to access it in the UK they'll simply do it elsewhere instead, taking much needed investment and job opportunities with opposing positions, no obvious compromise. Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
