High Court Dismisses Challenge to Refusal to Relocate Diego Garcia Refugee to the UK

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by KP, a Sri Lankan national seeking relocation to the UK after being excluded from an asylum arrangement for refugees on Diego Garcia. Despite being recognised as in need of international protection, KP was denied entry due to his criminal convictions. The case, R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs & Anor [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin), underscores the complexities of balancing humanitarian considerations with public safety concerns.

Background KP, an ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka, has a history of mental health issues, self-harm, and suicide attempts while on Diego Garcia. The British Indian Ocean Territory acknowledged that he had been subjected to torture and sexual abuse by Sri Lankan military personnel. Despite this, KP was excluded from a November 2024 decision that granted 61 other asylum seekers leave to enter the UK due to his prior criminal convictions, including arson, sexual assault, and a recent conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Given the impossibility of leaving him on Diego Garcia indefinitely, the UK government explored relocating him to a third country. A plan to transfer him to Montserrat’s HMP Brades was abandoned in January 2025 due to the short remainder of his sentence. The government continued to engage with other potential host countries, though KP’s criminal history posed a significant barrier to securing agreement.

A medico-legal report from February 2025 highlighted KP’s ongoing struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and the detrimental impact of his indefinite detention. His continued presence in a detention-like environment was exacerbating his mental health issues and increasing the risk of serious harm or suicide.

Judicial Review Proceedings KP challenged the decision to exclude him from relocation to the UK, arguing that the government had failed to adequately consider his vulnerabilities and the risks he faced on Diego Garcia. The High Court reviewed the case under the heightened scrutiny standard for rationality, examining both procedural and substantive aspects of the government’s decision-making.

While the court acknowledged concerns regarding the feasibility of relocating KP to a third country, it ultimately concluded that the UK government’s refusal to admit him was legally justified. The court emphasised that:

1. The government had made reasonable efforts to identify a third country willing to accept KP, with discussions ongoing with multiple nations.
2. The risks to KP’s health and safety were acknowledged, but there was no absolute obligation to eliminate such risks entirely.
3. The decision to exclude KP from entry to the UK was made within a broad margin of discretion afforded to the government, particularly given concerns about public safety and confidence in the immigration system.

The court found that relocating KP to the UK could undermine the UK’s commitments to tackling violence against women and girls, as well as pose risks to public safety. The judgment stressed that ministerial discretion in such high-profile cases should be given substantial deference.

Conclusion The judicial review was ultimately dismissed, though the court granted permission for the challenge to proceed in recognition of the case’s complexity. While KP’s legal options for challenging his exclusion from the UK may be limited, the case remains fluid. If no safe third country is found to accept him in the near future, the government’s position may become untenable, potentially leading to renewed legal challenges and a different outcome.