Facts: Note, this is not a Human Rights Act case, but forms the basis for thinking about proportionality review under the Human Rights Act
⇒ In this case, a civil servant was pursued by the State for participating in a peaceful demonstration against government corruption in Antigua. Under the Constitution, freedom of expression and assembly is guaranteed whilst permitting certain restrictions that were necessary in the public interest. A civil service code banned civil servants from engaging in any form of political controversy.
Held: It was held that the restraint imposed on civil servants amounted to more than what was necessary to pursue the public interest, and consequently the claimant’s constitutional right has been unlawfully infringed
⇒ Endorsing dicta from other Commonwealth jurisdictions, Lord Clyde (giving the judgment of the court) defined the basis or ‘test’ for proportionality review thus:
Facts: Two claimants—one from China, the other from Iran—sought indefinite leave to remain (in the first case) and asylum (in the second case). The Home Office rejected both applications, citing the UK Government’s new policy on immigration. What both cases had in common is the link each of the claimants had to the UK by virtue of close family members residing here - in Huang’s case, she was a dependant of her daughter who lived here
⇒ One case was successfully appealed to an adjudicator, but both claimants failed in their bids to gain access to the UK when an appeal was heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the first claimant won and the second had the case remitted to the tribunal. On appeal to the House of Lords, both claimants won to the extent that their appeal would be re-heard by the tribunal on a new basis
Held: The legal issue for the courts was whether - and to what extent - the decision-makers were obliged to take into account the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR in formulating and applying immigration policy and procedures
⇒ In considering what the proper basis is for proportionality review, Lord Bingham considered the decision in de Freitas (at ):
FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades
SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know
INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job
We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...
The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!
Facts: The claimant, a girl of Muslim faith, attended a school outside her catchment area. Although the school admitted mostly students of Muslim faith, it was not a faith school, admitting students of many different faiths. The school had a school uniform policy which provided for three options for girls - one of which was developed in consultation with the local Muslim community
⇒ One day, the claimant arrived at school in a ‘jilbab,’ and was told to go home and come back in school uniform. She didn’t go back to that school and spent around two years without any formal education at all. Although she later moved schools, she sought judicial review of the decision of the school not to admit her wearing the jilbab, in contravention of Article 9 ECHR on freedom of religion
Held: The High Court rejected her claim, but she successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. On appeal to the House of Lords, the School successfully defended their decision
⇒ In assessing whether the policy was a proportionate one in the sense that it did not disproportionality infringe upon the claimant’s right under Article 9, the court took into account:
Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.
✅ 60+ page eBook
✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!
✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE