## Facts

- Belfast City Council (BCC) refused to grant licenses for sex shops within its jurisdiction to Miss Behavin’ Ltd (MB).
- Miss Behavin’ Ltd challenged the refusal, arguing it violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal initially found in favour of MB, reasoning that BCC failed to adequately consider Article 10 rights and the proportionality of its interference.
- The case was appealed to the House of Lords, focusing on BCC's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) regarding proportionality and freedom of expression.
- The right asserted was the ability to vend pornography, which was subject to regulation by local authorities.

## Issues

1. Whether a public authority must demonstrate that it has undertaken a proportionality inquiry when making decisions affecting Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Whether BCC’s refusal to grant the licenses amounted to a breach of MB’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression.
3. Whether the focus in judicial review should be on the process undertaken by the public authority (procedural approach) or the actual impact and result of the decision (substantive approach).
4. How the margin of discretion afforded to public authorities varies depending on the nature and importance of the right in question.

## Decision

- The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal decision, holding that compliance with the Human Rights Act is assessed by the substantive outcome, not by whether the public authority performed a proportionality inquiry during its process.
- The Lords held that if the substance of the decision does not violate Convention rights, the decision is lawful, regardless of the authority’s procedural considerations.
- They found that MB’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression was not substantively breached by the refusal, noting the regulation of sex shops involves a wide margin of discretion for local authorities.
- The Court found the vending of pornography was a "low level" expression of Article 10 rights, justifying greater discretion for regulation.
- The key principle affirmed is that human rights compliance is a substantive issue for the courts, not a matter reliant on the decision-making procedures of public authorities.

## Legal Principles

- The principle of proportionality under the ECHR and HRA is substantive; courts assess the actual impact of decisions rather than the procedural steps undertaken by public authorities.
- Public authorities are not required to demonstrate that they performed a proportionality assessment if the decision itself is not in breach of Convention rights.
- The importance of the right at stake affects the scope of discretion afforded to public bodies; rights seen as less significant may warrant greater discretion in restriction.
- Courts should focus on whether there has been a substantive breach of rights, not whether correct procedures were followed.
- The decision affirms that some rights, particularly Article 10 in this context, are subject to a margin of discretion, especially when the right interfered with is of lower societal importance.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] UKHL 19 confirmed that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, judicial review is concerned with the substantive compliance of public authority decisions with Convention rights. A proportionality inquiry within the decision-making process is not a mandatory requirement; what matters is whether the result is proportionate and lawful. Regulation of vending pornography was deemed a low-level Article 10 right, permitting a broad margin of discretion for local authorities, and MB’s rights were found not to have been breached.

Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin' Ltd [2007] UKHL 19