Sir, The law lords’ decision not to allow the Chagos islanders to return to their homeland (report, Oct 23) seems incomprehensible.

I came to this country in 1956, aged 18, as a refugee from Hungary. The sympathy, the hospitality and the generosity with which we were received remains unforgettable. The Lord Mayor’s Fund to help us raised a great deal of money (Winston Churchill made a personal contribution of £2,000). People came to refugee camps to teach us English; took us out to tea, invited us to their homes. We had little or no difficulty finding jobs. British universities opened their gates to us: I received an education at one of the greatest universities in the world. Looking back on all this, I am still deeply moved: this country gave me a home and a life.

Are we now living in a different country? Lord Hoffmann declares that “the right of abode is a creature of the law. The law gives it and the law may take it away.” These stern words bring up the question of the law as opposed to justice. They should not be opposed, but they frequently are. Laws are made in the spirit, and in the service, of the law; it is one of the responsibilities of the law to defend justice. It does not always do so. This is an age-old problem. Sophocles’s play Antigone, and Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure are documents of this conflict. (Both dramatists had a thorough understanding of the law.)

The law lords’ decision is an example of law without justice. Losing your homeland is a traumatic experience. To be forced to lose it is an offence against human rights; it is for those who impose the law to mend it when it ignores or defies justice.

Hope against hope? I hope not.

John Peter

London N1

Explore Letters

• Feedback