{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038231780167264036, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03942652329749104, 'mean_word_length': 5.396946564885496, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The overseas territories and the British courts

ABSTRACT This article defends the British courts against charges of colonialism in determining challenges brought to the British Government’s direct intervention in the administration of its overseas territories. Primarily from the analysis of three sets of cases (Christian v R [2007] 2 AC 400 (PC), R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 (HL), and R (Misick) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 1039 (Admin), [2009] EWCA Civ 1549), I argue that the courts have adopted a sensitive approach to questions of how these territories are governed—little different to the one employed in the domestic context—that appropriately safeguards the rights of territory citizens from British Government overreach.