Get the news feed: RSS feed icon

Central Criminal Courts image
This site is based on Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings, 5th and 6th Editions.
Out now: Passion, Poison and Power, Brian Harris' new book
on the Murder of Sir Thomas Overbury
Learn moreOrder online.

Proportionality

The European doctrine of proportionality means that, ‘an official measure must not have any greater effect on private interests than is necessary for the attainment of its objective’: Konninlijke Scholton-Honig v Hoofproduktchap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1978] ECR 1991, 2003.

Proportionality is probably not a ground for review separate from judicial review, but when a decision is challenged by judicial review the new approach required under the HRA was described by Lord Steyn in R (Daly) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532, paragraphs 25 – 28. There is no shift to a merits review, but the intensity of review is greater than was previously appropriate, and greater even than the heightened scrutiny test adopted by the Court of Appeal in R v Minister of Defence ex parte Smith [1996] QB 554. The domestic court must now make a value judgment, an evaluation, by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time: Wilson v The First County Trust Limited (No. 2) [2004] 1 AC 816, paragraph 62-67. Proportionality must be judged objectively, by the Courts: R (Williamson) v The Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] 2 AC 246, paragraph 51. See also the comments of Lord Bingham in the case of R(SD) v The Governors of Denbeigh High School [2007] 1 AC 100, para 30.

Exactly how the courts should approach issues of proportionality was discussed by Lord Steyn in the case of R (Daly) v SSHD [2001] 2 WLR 1622, in which he said at paragraph 27: "The contours of the principle of proportionality are familiar. In de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69 the Privy Council adopted a three-stage test. Lord Clyde observed, at p 80, that in determining whether a limitation (by an act, rule or decision) is arbitrary or excessive the court should ask itself: "whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective."

And see also the cases of R (Samaroo) v SSHD [2001] EWCA Civ 1139; UKHRR 150 and Smith & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 1013 (Admin).


Categories: 4th Edition, Chapter 14, Updates