## Facts

- The claimants challenged Immigration Rules that set a minimum age for spouses seeking to enter the UK for marriage.
- The government’s stated aim was to prevent forced marriages and protect vulnerable persons, particularly young women.
- The Immigration Rules interfered with individuals’ right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The UK Supreme Court reviewed the rule using the four-part proportionality test, assessing the necessity and impact of the measure.
- The Court examined available evidence regarding whether the age rule effectively reduced forced marriages.

## Issues

1. Whether the Immigration Rules introducing a minimum age for spousal entry were a proportionate interference with the right to family life under Article 8 ECHR.
2. Whether the government's measure was justified by a legitimate aim and supported by robust evidence.
3. Whether less restrictive alternatives to the minimum age rule could sufficiently achieve the government’s stated objectives.
4. Whether the impact of the rule on genuine couples outweighed the public benefit it purported to deliver.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court found that the government’s aim of preventing forced marriages and protecting vulnerable groups was legitimate.
- The Court considered the rational connection between raising the minimum age and the aim to reduce forced marriages but found the evidential basis weak.
- The Court held that less intrusive alternatives, such as improved screening or support for victims, were available and not adequately considered.
- The harmful impact of the Immigration Rules on genuine couples and the lack of sufficient evidence in support of the measure’s effectiveness led the Court to find the rules disproportionate.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration Rules were incompatible with Article 8 ECHR because they failed the proportionality test.

## Legal Principles

- Proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998 involves a four-stage test: (1) existence of a legitimate aim, (2) rational connection between the measure and the aim, (3) necessity—whether less restrictive means would suffice, and (4) fair balancing of individual rights and public interest.
- The government bears the burden of proving the necessity and proportionality of restrictive measures affecting Convention rights.
- Courts require substantiated evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of any measure that restricts fundamental rights.
- When alternative, less intrusive means are available, states must justify the adoption of stricter rules.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified and reinforced proportionality analysis under the Human Rights Act 1998, ruling that the minimum age requirement for spousal entry was an unjustified and disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights due to insufficient evidential support and failure to consider less restrictive alternatives.


R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45