| Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos archipelago, one of the most remote island groups in the world. Once part of Mauritius when it was a British colony, the Chagos Islands were hived off as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) when Mauritius obtained its independence in 1968, and their residents were summarily evicted. Diego Garcia was leased as a US military base, and is now home only to the US and British personnel who keep the site running. Earlier this year, a deal was struck to return the islands to Mauritian control while maintaining the UK-US presence on Diego Garcia. In this excellent piece from July, Diane Taylor emphasises the location’s dissonance: “In many ways, the island – with its pure white sands, palm trees and azure seas – looks a lot like paradise,” she writes. But for the asylum seekers who are stuck here, 16 of whom are children, that idyll could not be further from their reality.” How did the asylum seekers get there? Of the 64 asylum seekers detained at Diego Garcia, 63 had been there since October 2021, when their boat got into difficulties near the island. All of them were Sri Lankan Tamils, and many said that they feared persecution if they were to return home. The legal case has been brought by 12 of them. Five other boats arrived over the next six months, carrying another 285 asylum seekers, all of whom have since left the island. “The ones who were still there were the hard core who felt very sure that they would face persecution at home,” Diane said. “They used the same word again and again: safety. That is all they want.” Even before their ordeal on Diego Garcia, the 64 had endured appalling circumstances – both at home and in their perilous journey to escape. They tell stories about torture in Sri Lanka, and the need to shield their children from the certainty they were going to die at sea as they drifted with little hope of salvation. “One woman I interviewed had been born in a refugee camp in India after her parents fled there from Sri Lanka,” Diane said. “So literally her whole life has been in these dire circumstances. It isn’t just the trauma of what happened on the island – it’s the layering with what came before.” Were they free to leave? The BIOT authorities claim the conditions for the asylum seekers on Diego Garcia did not amount to unlawful detention because they were always free to leave for Sri Lanka or anywhere else that would accept them. But with no safe third country forthcoming, that appears to have been no choice at all. The UK’s commissioner on the island also claimed that they could leave by boats “independently arranged”. But the asylum seekers were destitute and had no means of repairing their boats, securing provisions or buying replacements. As the judge wrote: “A Hobsonian choice between a very poor option and no option at all is not a genuine choice … it is akin to saying that a person imprisoned on the edge of a cliff is free to jump.” And she said: “It is unsurprising that the claimants feel as if they are in a prison; that is exactly what it is, in all but name.” What were the conditions like? The asylum seekers lived in rat-infested tents that let water in when it rained, and had no access to cooking facilities. They were denied any productive activity, and the children had only rudimentary schooling. They were denied mobile sim cards or access to wifi, and were guarded by officers from the security company G4S. Some of the Tamils told Diane in interviews that the guards would “taunt them by eating bars of chocolate that their kids weren’t allowed to have”. Perhaps the clearest sign of the removal of their liberty was the fact that their encampment was fenced in on all sides except one, which was blocked by thick bushes and trees. A previous court order said that they must be allowed access to a beach for walks. But they were prohibited from filling their water bottles from taps along the route. And they were told that public urination was an offence – but barred from using toilets they passed as they went. The asylum seekers felt themselves to be in a hopeless situation. There was a hunger strike, and many attempted suicide; one was charged with arson after trying to burn himself alive, and others swallowed razor blades and metal wire. There were multiple cases of self-harm, and a child was subjected to sexual assault by a fellow detainee. A UNHCR report on the camp said: “The cumulative impact of prolonged detention in conditions of close surveillance, mistrust in asylum procedures and the BIOT authorities, lack of agency and uncertainty about the future, are having significant consequences … The detention of and associated impact on children is of particularly grave concern.” Why were they treated this way? With costs forecast to reach £50m a year, it may seem hard to understand why the British authorities would not simply grant the asylum seekers greater liberty on the island, or allow them to claim asylum in the UK. The judgment makes clear that American influence was a key reason. “It looks like they called the shots,” Diane said. A US diplomatic cable quoted in the ruling says that greater freedoms would be “an unacceptable and significant security risk … the migrants cannot be permitted greater access to the facility”. Meanwhile, the judge writes, one of the UK’s objectives was “preventing a migration route to the UK via the Indian Ocean”. And, said Diane, it was significant that events on Diego Garcia were playing out against the backdrop of the Conservative government’s ill-fated attempts to establish its Rwanda scheme. “That is at the core of it,” she said. “They were worried about anything that would set a precedent for Rwanda.” When Labour came in, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, “was frightened of looking weak on asylum issues”, Diane said. But before the ruling was handed down, the government moved to bring the situation to an end, and those remaining on the island were relocated to the UK and granted six months to remain and file asylum claims. What does the judge’s ruling mean? The BIOT supreme court operates in London, but the acting judge, Margaret Obi, made the decision to travel to Diego Garcia to hear the case despite an American attempt to block it. “I’ve never known a judge do that before,” Diane said. “It was remarkable.” The judge ruled unambiguously that the asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained. “It is a massive vindication for them,” Diane said. Significantly, the judgment opens the way to compensation – and that could mean a bill of millions if most of the asylum seekers make a claim. “I don’t think many of them are thinking about that yet,” Diane said. “But if they get permission to settle here, it may help them build a new life.” For now, the crucial result of the ruling may simply be recognition of what the asylum seekers have endured. One woman who Diane spoke to last week told her: “When the judge came to Diego Garcia to hear the legal case we had our first glimpse of hope. What we want for our children is that there is a full stop after the word ‘refugee’. We don’t want our children to lead the lives we led. We want them to grow up leading a free and peaceful life.” | 