R (Daly) v Secretary of State, [2001] 2 AC 532

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

The Lowerwood City Council recently enacted a regulation banning all forms of public gatherings and demonstrations within a 500-meter radius of every government office building. The Council claims that this measure is necessary to ensure public safety and minimize traffic congestion in the administrative district. An activist group contends that the policy imposes excessive restrictions on their constitutional right to freedom of assembly, suggesting that alternative, less severe measures could fulfill the same objectives. They assert that the policy fails both the Wednesbury standard of reasonableness and the stricter proportionality test in judicial review. Following the rejection of their administrative appeals, the group seeks to challenge the measure in court.


Which of the following best describes how a court would review this regulation under the proportionality test?

Introduction

Judicial review, a key part of administrative law, allows courts to scrutinize the lawfulness of government actions. The traditional ground for intervention, Wednesbury unreasonableness, requires a decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it. However, R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 marked a significant shift, demonstrating how proportionality, derived from European human rights law, offers a more structured and potentially rigorous standard of review, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. This case established key principles for applying proportionality in human rights contexts, impacting subsequent judicial review cases.

The Facts of Daly

Mr. Daly, a prisoner, challenged a prison policy requiring inmates to be absent during cell searches, including the examination of legally privileged correspondence. He argued that this policy infringed upon his common law right to confidentiality in legally privileged communications. The House of Lords agreed.

Proportionality: A Structured Test

The House of Lords in Daly articulated a four-stage proportionality test. First, the legislative objective must be sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right. Second, the measures designed to meet the legislative objective must be rationally connected to it. Third, the means used to impair the right or freedom must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective. Finally, there must be a fair balance struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community, often referred to as “strict proportionality” or the “proportionality stricto sensu.”

Wednesbury and Proportionality: A Comparative Analysis

Wednesbury unreasonableness sets a high threshold for intervention. A decision must be so irrational as to be almost inconceivable. Proportionality, in contrast, provides a more structured and searching analysis. It requires the court to assess not just the rationality of the decision, but also its necessity and the balance struck between competing interests. This allows for greater judicial scrutiny, especially when fundamental rights are involved. Lord Steyn in Daly explicitly stated that proportionality is a more intensive standard of review than Wednesbury.

The Impact of Daly

Daly solidified the role of proportionality in human rights judicial review. Subsequent cases, such as Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39, further refined the application of proportionality, emphasizing the importance of considering less restrictive alternatives and the margin of appreciation afforded to the decision-maker. The Bank Mellat case highlighted that the intensity of review under proportionality varies depending on the context, including the nature of the right involved and the knowledge of the decision-maker.

Applying Proportionality in Practice: Examples and Considerations

The application of proportionality can be seen in various contexts. For example, in R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45, the Supreme Court applied proportionality to assess the lawfulness of minimum age requirements for spouses seeking entry to the UK. The Court considered whether the measures were necessary to prevent forced marriages and protect vulnerable individuals, balancing these aims against the right to family life.

Another example is Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, which concerned immigration appeals. The House of Lords clarified the application of proportionality in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life), emphasizing the need for a structured assessment of the individual circumstances.

These examples illustrate the importance of a context-specific application of proportionality, considering the specific right at stake, the legitimate aims pursued, and the necessity and proportionality of the measures adopted.

Conclusion

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department stands as an important case in administrative law. It established the prominence of proportionality as the appropriate standard of review in cases involving human rights. By providing a structured framework for analyzing the justification and impact of government action on fundamental rights, proportionality offers a more rigorous and detailed approach than the traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness test. The subsequent case law, including Bank Mellat and Quila, has further developed the application of proportionality, emphasizing the importance of context and the varying intensity of review. Daly fundamentally reshaped the area of judicial review in human rights cases, ensuring greater protection for fundamental freedoms. The principles established in Daly continue to guide judicial scrutiny of government action, ensuring a balance between individual rights and public interests.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal