On February 8, 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled [3] in R (on the application of Bancoult No 3) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that a Wikileaks cable leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning should have been admitted into evidence before the Administrative Court, but that it would not have affected the outcome of the case in this instance. The case concerns a challenge by the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) on behalf of Chagos islanders that were expelled from the island in the 1960s and 70s, arguing against the British government’s decision to create a marine protected area around the Chagos islands, which would prevent Chagossians from commercially fishing in the area should they be able to return. The CRG argued that the cable “showed improper ulterior motive, namely to make resettlement by the Chagossians impracticable.” The government argued in part that use of the cable “would be contrary to the principle of inviolability of the US mission’s diplomatic archive in breach of articles 24 and 27(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 [VCDR].” The Court held that the cable had lost its inviolability because it was no longer part of the U.S. mission archive at the time it was obtained and its publication by Wikileaks and various newspapers had put it in the public domain. Despite finding that it should have been admitted, the Court also held that the Administrative Court was correct in determining that the cable would not have had a material effect on the outcome of the decision regarding improper motive and was not a ground for appeal. The press release [4] notes that the Court was unanimous in holding that the cable should have been admitted into evidence.