Dozens of asylum seekers stranded on one of the most remote islands in the world in conditions described as “hell on earth” were unlawfully detained there by the UK for three years, a judge has found.
The government could now face a bill of millions in damages for unlawfully detaining more than 60 people for such a long period.
More than 60 Tamil asylum seekers became stranded on the tropical island of Diego Garcia – halfway between Tanzania and Indonesia in the Indian Ocean – in October 2021 after their boat sprung a leak.
En route to Canada where they hoped to claim asylum, they were rescued by the British navy, which is part of a military presence on the UK territory. The US leases land from the UK on the island for a strategically sensitive military base.
The asylum seekers hoped to get their boat repaired and continue on their journey after a few days on the island, which has white sands surrounded by turquoise seas and dense forests of coconut palms.
Instead they remained in rat-infested tents, largely deprived of their liberty. At the beginning of December this year, UK ministers finally agreed to airlift all but three of them who have criminal cases to the UK.
The ruling, hailed by lawyers for the stranded asylum seekers as “a victory for justice”, was made by Margaret Obi, acting judge of the supreme court of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The judge accepted evidence from the asylum seekers that those in the camp were collectively punished, and that they were told that if they left the camp they would be shot by US military personnel.
In her ruling Judge Obi found: “It is unsurprising that the claimants feel as if they are in a prison; that is exactly what it is, in all but name.”
One asylum seeker gave evidence to the judge describing life in the camp as “slow death every day” and “hell on earth”. Another said that although he and his family felt that they were living in a prison, unlike prisoners they did not know how long their sentence was for.
They said: “We have no control over our lives here. If we are commanded to stand we stand, if we are commanded to sit we sit. I feel like a bird being kept in a cage.”
after newsletter promotion
The judge found that the UK Home Office impeded the progress of the claims for international protection because of the political impact on the government’s then flagship Rwanda policy. This prevented asylum claims being determined and either being granted or refused.
Although the judge had granted the asylum seekers bail to leave their 140m by 100m compound for limited walks, the commissioner on the island initially prevented them from leaving their camp. When they were allowed out they were not allowed to sit down, to use toilets or to refill their water bottles despite the tropical conditions.
In a diplomatic cable from the US authorities to the UK government sent on 12 June this year, the US said that if the asylum seekers left their camp it “presents an unacceptable and significant security risk to US base operations”.
Simon Robinson, solicitor at Duncan Lewis, representing the claimants, said: “There is plainly a public interest in further inquiry about how an unlawful overseas detention camp operated for three years, and at huge expense to the UK taxpayer, which is compounded by the liability to pay damages which now arises.”
