## Facts

- The claimants, represented by ABCIFER (Association of British Civilian Internees – Far East Region), were former civilian internees of the Japanese during World War II.
- They challenged the government's decision to exclude certain groups of internees from a compensation scheme established for British prisoners of war (POWs).
- The compensation scheme involved a one-off payment to qualifying individuals who had been POWs and suffered in specified ways.
- The excluded claimants argued that their exclusion was unlawful and challenged it on grounds of both Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s exclusion of certain internees from the POW compensation scheme was unlawful on the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
2. Whether the exclusion constituted a disproportionate interference with individual rights, thereby rendering the scheme unlawful.
3. To what extent courts may intervene in executive decisions involving resource allocation and public policy, particularly under the tests of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal.
- The court held that the government’s decision was neither irrational (i.e., Wednesbury unreasonable) nor disproportionate.
- Legitimate reasons for limiting the scheme’s scope were identified, including financial constraints and practical difficulties in assessing individual claims decades after the events.
- The court emphasized judicial deference to the executive in matters of resource allocation and public policy.

## Legal Principles

- Wednesbury unreasonableness remains the primary test for judicial review of administrative decisions in domestic law, requiring that a decision be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
- Proportionality, derived from EU and ECHR law, involves more intensive scrutiny and requires that a measure be suitable, necessary, and balanced between individual rights and the public interest.
- The court recognized that in cases involving fundamental rights, Wednesbury may be applied with greater intensity, echoing aspects of proportionality, though it remains the standard approach in domestic law.
- Judicial review applications must overcome the high threshold established by Wednesbury, particularly where government discretion and public policy are involved.

## Conclusion

R (ABCIFER) v Defence Secretary clarified the relationship between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality in judicial review, upholding the government’s POW compensation criteria as lawful and affirming the courts’ reluctance to intervene in policy decisions involving resource allocation, even where individual rights claims are implicated.

R (ABCIFER) v Defence Secretary [2003] QB 1397 (EWCA Civ 473)