Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Af...

Facts

• Mr. Youssef challenged the legality of an asset freeze imposed by the UK Treasury under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2006.
• He claimed the asset freeze was disproportionate and infringed his rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
• The measure was implemented in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, obligating the UK to enforce sanctions targeting terrorism financing.
• The Supreme Court examined the context of proportionality in balancing effective anti-terrorism sanctions with individual property rights.

Issues

1. Whether the asset freeze imposed on Mr. Youssef was a suitable response to the legitimate aim of combating terrorism.
2. Whether less restrictive measures than the asset freeze could have adequately achieved the government's objectives.
3. Whether the interference with Mr. Youssef’s property rights was disproportionate when weighed against the public interest in national security and international obligations.
4. The extent to which courts should defer to the executive in the context of national security and sanctions.

Decision

• The Supreme Court found the asset freeze suitable for the legitimate aim of disrupting terrorist financing and upholding international obligations.
• It held that less restrictive alternatives would undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions and international collaboration.
• The Court concluded that, despite the impact on Mr. Youssef, the measure was not disproportionate in view of national security imperatives.
• The judgment emphasized deference to the executive in national security matters, given the government's access to sensitive intelligence and specialised knowledge.
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the asset freeze.

Legal Principles

• Proportionality in UK administrative law comprises suitability, necessity, and a balance of harms.
• For sanctions, proportionality review requires careful consideration of both individual rights and national/international security interests.
• The courts recognize and apply a principle of deference to executive assessments in matters involving national security, especially when obligations under international law are engaged.
• The right to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR may be lawfully restricted where justified by pressing public and international policy objectives.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs confirmed that asset freezes imposed under international sanctions can be proportionate and lawful, stressing the complexities of aligning individual rights with national security concerns and the need for judicial deference in executive decision-making on sensitive security matters.