Proportionality in administrative actions
Proportionality in Administrative Actions
What is Proportionality?
Proportionality is a legal principle that requires that administrative actions or governmental measures:
Pursue a legitimate aim.
Are suitable or appropriate to achieve that aim.
Are necessary, meaning no less restrictive alternative is available.
Maintain a reasonable balance between the benefits of the action and the harm caused, i.e., the action should not be excessive or disproportionate.
It is a tool to ensure fairness and justice, especially when fundamental rights or freedoms are restricted.
Proportionality is especially prominent in human rights law and EU law, but has increasingly been applied in UK common law.
Proportionality vs. Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Traditionally, UK courts applied the Wednesbury test (irrationality) to review administrative decisions.
Wednesbury unreasonableness required that a decision be “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.”
Proportionality is a more structured and rigorous test than Wednesbury, asking whether the means used were appropriate and balanced.
Post-Human Rights Act 1998, proportionality has gained more prominence, especially in cases involving ECHR rights.
Key Cases Illustrating Proportionality in Administrative Law
1. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts: Prison policy allowed cell searches but breached prisoner’s legal correspondence confidentiality.
Issue: Whether the interference with legal professional privilege was proportionate.
Holding: The House of Lords held the policy was disproportionate because the interference was not justified by a sufficient need and less intrusive means were available.
Significance: Established proportionality as a key principle protecting individual rights in administrative decisions.
2. Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (2013)
Facts: The UK Treasury imposed financial restrictions on Bank Mellat due to Iran sanctions.
Issue: Whether these restrictions were proportionate measures balancing national security and economic rights.
Holding: The Supreme Court held the Treasury’s decision was disproportionate because the restrictions were overbroad and lacked sufficient justification.
Significance: Reinforced proportionality in the context of balancing competing public and private interests.
3. R (European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (2004)
Facts: Immigration officers denied entry to Roma asylum seekers without a proper assessment.
Issue: Whether the refusal was proportionate considering the applicants’ rights.
Holding: The House of Lords emphasized that measures interfering with human rights must be strictly proportionate.
Significance: Highlighted proportionality in the context of immigration control and human rights.
4. R (Corner House Research) v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2005)
Facts: Government halted a serious fraud investigation under foreign policy pressure.
Issue: Whether the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful and proportionate.
Holding: The Court recognized that although governments have discretion, decisions must be proportionate and not arbitrary.
Significance: Illustrated proportionality applied to executive discretion and political considerations.
5. R (ProLife Alliance) v. British Broadcasting Corporation (2003)
Facts: BBC banned political party’s broadcast on abortion due to graphic content.
Issue: Whether the ban was a proportionate restriction on freedom of expression.
Holding: The Court held the ban was proportionate, balancing free speech against public interest and standards.
Significance: Showed proportionality balancing competing rights—in this case, expression vs. public decency.
6. Golder v. United Kingdom (1975) (European Court of Human Rights)
Facts: Prisoner denied access to a solicitor.
Issue: Violation of right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.
Holding: ECHR held the denial was disproportionate.
Significance: One of the early cases setting the proportionality standard under human rights law.
Application of Proportionality in Practice
Legitimate Aim: Government must clearly articulate the goal (e.g., public safety, national security).
Suitability: The measure must be rationally connected to the aim.
Necessity: No less restrictive means must be available.
Balancing: Courts weigh the benefits of the decision against its adverse effects on individual rights.
Why is Proportionality Important?
It provides a structured, transparent, and principled approach to reviewing administrative decisions.
It strengthens protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary or excessive state interference.
It reflects modern constitutional values, particularly in human rights jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments