▁B anc ou lt ▁brought ▁a ▁second ▁case , ▁claim ing ▁that ▁Cook ' s ▁statement ▁had ▁created ▁a ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁( l ater ▁fr ustr ated ▁by ▁the ▁ 2 0 0 4 ▁orders ) ▁and ▁question ing ▁the ▁valid ity ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁Order ▁ 2 0 0 4 , ▁particularly ▁the ▁leg ality ▁of ▁Section ▁ 9 . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁The ▁case ▁first ▁went ▁to ▁the ▁Div is ional ▁Court , ▁where ▁Ho oper ▁L J ▁and ▁C ress well ▁J ▁decided ▁in ▁favour ▁of ▁B anc ou lt ▁on ▁ 1 1 ▁May ▁ 2 0 0 6 . ▁The ▁court ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁" inter ests ▁of ▁B I OT ▁must ▁be ▁or ▁must ▁primarily ▁be ▁those ▁whose ▁right ▁of ▁ab ode ▁and ▁un rest rict ed ▁right ▁to ▁enter ▁and ▁remain ▁was ▁being ▁in ▁effect ▁removed ", ▁and ▁that ▁as ▁Section ▁ 9 ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution al ▁Order ▁did ▁not ▁serve ▁the ▁interests ▁of ▁it ▁or ▁its ▁inhabitants , ▁it ▁was ▁ir r ational . ▁At ▁the ▁same ▁time , ▁the ▁court ▁was ▁asked ▁to ▁rule ▁on ▁whether ▁an ▁Order ▁in ▁Council ▁could ▁be ▁question ed ▁in ▁jud icial ▁review ▁proceed ings . ▁It ▁decided ▁that , ▁under ▁Council ▁of ▁Civil ▁Service ▁Un ions ▁v ▁Minister ▁for ▁the ▁Civil ▁Service , ▁the ▁decis ive ▁element ▁was ▁not ▁the ▁origin ▁of ▁the ▁power ▁( in ▁this ▁case , ▁the ▁Royal ▁Pr er og ative ) ▁but ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁power . ▁According ly , ▁Or