Editing Order in Council (section)

===United Kingdom===
Orders in Council were controversially used in 2004 to overturn a court ruling in the [[United Kingdom]]<ref name="Ref_h">''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]'' [2008] UKHL 61</ref> that held that the [[exile]] of the [[Chagossians]] from the [[British Indian Ocean Territory]] (BIOT) was unlawful. Initially, the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] in 2006 held that these Orders in Council were unlawful: "The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile a whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim that he is doing so for the '[[peace, order and good government]]' of the territory is to us repugnant."<ref name="Ref_e">"[https://web.archive.org/web/20060619185128/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/12/wchag12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/12/ixnews.html Britain shamed as exiles of the Chagos Islands win the right to go home]", Neil Tweedie, ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', 12 May 2006. Accessed 17 December 2006.</ref> The UK government's first appeal failed, with the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] holding that the decision had been unlawfully taken by a government minister "acting without any constraint".<ref name="Ref_f">"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6683205.stm Chagos families win legal battle]", [[BBC News]], 23 May 2007</ref> However, the government successfully appealed to the [[Appellate Committee of the House of Lords|House of Lords]], which overturned the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions (''[[R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)]]'').<ref name="Ref_g">"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm Chagos exiles ruling overturned]". [[BBC News]], 22 October 2008</ref> The [[Law Lords]] decided<ref name="Ref_h"/> that the validity of an order in council made under the prerogative legislating for a colony was amenable to judicial review.<ref>Note: see paragraph 35 of the decision</ref> Also, it was not for the courts to substitute their judgement for that of the Secretary of State as to what was conducive to the peace, order and good government of the BIOT. The orders were not [[Wednesbury unreasonable]] on the facts, given the considerations of security and cost of resettlement. Finally, none of the orders was open to challenge in the British courts on the ground of repugnancy to any fundamental principle relating to the rights of abode of the [[Chagossians]] in the [[Chagos Archipelago|Chagos Islands]].