## Facts

- Mr. Tariq, a former immigration officer, brought a claim of racial and religious discrimination against the Home Office after his security clearance was revoked and he was dismissed.
- The Home Office argued that disclosing the reasons for the security clearance revocation would compromise national security interests.
- To protect this sensitive information, the Home Office sought to use a closed material procedure (CMP), which would restrict Mr. Tariq and his legal representatives from accessing certain evidence.
- Special advocates—security-cleared lawyers—were appointed to represent Mr. Tariq’s interests during the closed parts of the proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees an absolute right to full disclosure in employment tribunal proceedings involving national security.
2. Whether the use of closed material procedures in employment tribunals can be justified to protect national security while preserving the right to a fair trial.
3. What procedural safeguards, such as the use of special advocates, are necessary to ensure fairness when disclosure is limited.
4. How to balance an individual’s right to a fair trial against the state’s interest in protecting sensitive information.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed that CMPs are legitimate in exceptional circumstances where national security would be compromised by full disclosure.
- It held that Article 6 ECHR does not require absolute disclosure; restricted disclosure may be permissible when necessary and proportionate to a demonstrable threat.
- CMPs should only be utilized as a last resort, after a rigorous assessment of necessity and proportionality.
- The role of special advocates was upheld as essential in counterbalancing procedural disadvantages for claimants excluded from closed material.
- The court insisted that proceedings must remain fundamentally fair, requiring constant judicial scrutiny of the process and prejudice to the claimant.

## Legal Principles

- The right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions where strictly required by national security.
- Closed material procedures are permissible, provided their use is demonstrably necessary, proportionate, and subject to stringent safeguards.
- Special advocates help mitigate the impact of non-disclosure on claimants and improve procedural fairness within CMPs.
- National security interests may justify limitations on disclosure, but a balance must be maintained to prevent fundamental unfairness.
- The decision influenced subsequent legislation, notably the Justice and Security Act 2013, which codified these principles for a broader range of civil proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Tariq v Home Office established that closed material procedures and limited disclosure are lawful in employment tribunal cases where necessary to protect national security, provided robust safeguards ensure fairness. The judgment clarified that the right to a fair trial is not unqualified and has had enduring effects on national security litigation and legislative reform.

Tariq v Home Office [2012] 1 AC 452 (SC)