ess , ▁as ▁it ▁was ▁ir r ational . ▁ ▁The ▁case , ▁R ▁( B anc ou lt ) ▁v ▁Secretary ▁of ▁State ▁for ▁Foreign ▁and ▁Commonwealth ▁Affairs , ▁went ▁to ▁the ▁Div is ional ▁Court , ▁where ▁it ▁was ▁heard ▁by ▁jud ges ▁Richard ▁Gib bs ▁and ▁John ▁La ws . ▁B anc ou lt ' s ▁argument ▁was ▁made ▁on ▁several ▁grounds : ▁first ly , ▁that ▁the ▁Crown ▁could ▁not ▁exclude ▁a ▁British ▁citiz en ▁from ▁British ▁territory , ▁except ▁in ▁times ▁of ▁war , ▁without ▁a ▁valid ▁stat ut ory ▁basis ▁or ▁pr er og ative ▁power . ▁Second ly , ▁the ▁Ch ag os si ans ▁had ▁a ▁constitution al ▁right ▁to ▁inhab it ▁their ▁land ▁under ▁the ▁Mag na ▁Cart a , ▁one ▁which ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁ab rid ged ▁with ▁deleg ated ▁legisl ation , ▁and ▁third , ▁the ▁Commission er ▁of ▁B I OT ' s ▁duty ▁to ▁legisl ate ▁" for ▁the ▁peace , ▁order ▁and ▁good ▁government " ▁of ▁B I OT ' s ▁inhabitants ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁said ▁to ▁be ▁ful filled ▁by ▁re loc ating ▁those ▁inhabitants . ▁ ▁The ▁respond ent , ▁the ▁Foreign ▁& ▁Commonwealth ▁Office ▁( F CO ), ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁English ▁courts ▁had ▁no ▁juris diction ▁over ▁the ▁case , ▁since ▁the ▁Crown ▁is ▁divis ible ▁amongst ▁its ▁territ ories , ▁and ▁the ▁B I OT ▁had ▁its ▁own ▁courts . ▁According ▁to ▁the ▁F CO , ▁Mag na ▁Cart a , ▁as ▁a ▁British