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.
