The case law on human rights and administrative law is voluminous; this section offers a selective narrative of the most significant decisions shaping contemporary doctrine.
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
This case is the foundation of proportionality-based review in English administrative law. The claimant, a prisoner, challenged a policy under which prison officers could examine privileged legal correspondence in the prisoner's absence. The policy was held to breach Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and could not be justified as necessary or proportionate. Lord Steyn's speech explained the theoretical and practical differences between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness. He noted that while most cases would reach the same outcome under either test, proportionality could lead to a different result because it demanded closer attention to the justification offered and the balance struck. The decision marked the ascendancy of proportionality in rights cases.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
The claimant's same-sex partner died, and the claimant sought to succeed to a statutory tenancy under the Rent Act 1977. The statute referred to a person living with the original tenant 'as his or her wife or husband'. The House of Lords held that this should be read under s 3 HRA to include same-sex partners, to avoid discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. The case clarified the scope of the s 3 interpretive obligation: courts may depart from the ordinary meaning of the language, modify or supplement words, but may not contradict a fundamental feature of the legislative scheme. Ghaidan is routinely cited for the proposition that s 3 is a powerful tool, but one with limits grounded in legislative purpose and constitutional propriety.
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (Belmarsh case)
The claimants challenged provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 permitting the indefinite detention without trial of non-UK nationals suspected of terrorism. The House of Lords held that the provisions were incompatible with Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), because the threat from international terrorism came from UK nationals and non-nationals alike, and the discrimination was not justified. The decision illustrates the Court's willingness to scrutinise executive assertions of necessity in the national security context, though several speeches emphasised deference to the executive's assessment of the existence and scale of the threat. Lord Bingham's lead speech is a masterclass in proportionality analysis and remains frequently cited.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
The claimants, prisoners seeking parole or review, challenged the Parole Board's refusal to hold oral hearings. The Supreme Court held that both Article 5(4) (right to speedy review of detention) and common law principles of procedural fairness required oral hearings in certain circumstances. Lord Reed's judgment emphasised that common law fairness may be more generous than Convention minima and that the common law should continue to develop independently. The decision underscores the continuing vitality of common law constitutional principles alongside HRA rights.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, challenged a direction by HM Treasury prohibiting all UK financial institutions from dealing with it, on grounds of suspected involvement in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities. The Supreme Court held that the direction was disproportionate: while the objective (preventing nuclear proliferation) was legitimate and the measure rationally connected, the Treasury had not shown that a blanket prohibition was necessary when more targeted measures were available. Lord Sumption's four-stage proportionality framework, set out above, has become the standard approach. The case also illustrates that courts will, where the context permits, scrutinise executive decisions intensively even on sensitive foreign policy and national security matters.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
The government introduced fees for bringing claims in employment tribunals. The Supreme Court held that the fees regime was unlawful at common law because it had the effect of preventing access to justice, a constitutional right of high importance. Lord Reed held that the right of access to court was inherent in the rule of law and could only be limited by clear statutory language which struck a proportionate balance. Importantly, the Court resolved the case on common law grounds without needing to reach the Convention arguments. The decision reaffirms that common law constitutional principles remain a distinct and robust ground of review.
R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] UKSC 7
The claimant's British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds while she was in Syria, leaving her de facto unable to participate in her appeal. The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of Article 6 or common law fairness, because national security considerations justified the temporary inability to participate effectively; her rights could be vindicated at a later stage if circumstances changed. The majority (Lord Reed PSC) emphasised that the safety of the public and officials outweighed the individual's immediate procedural rights. Lord Kerr and Lady Hale dissented. The case demonstrates the limits of rights protection where national security imperatives are compelling, and illustrates ongoing tensions about the appropriate level of judicial deference.