Key Facts
- •Claimants challenged Syria Sanctions (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 under s.38(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
- •Claimants argued Regulations infringed Articles 8 and/or 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, breaching s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- •Specific grounds: inability to remit money to/from family in Syria (Remittances Ground) and inability to send/receive correspondence (Correspondence Ground).
- •Regulations don't explicitly prohibit remittances or correspondence but impact their feasibility through restrictions on Syrian banks and trade sanctions.
- •Secretary of State argued Regulations pursue legitimate aims of national security and were proportionate.
- •Evidence presented included statements from Ministers, reports to Parliament, and inquiries with postal services.
Legal Principles
Section 6(1) HRA 1998: Unlawful for public authority to act incompatibly with ECHR rights.
Human Rights Act 1998
Article 8 ECHR: Right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. Interference must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.
European Convention on Human Rights
A1P1 ECHR: Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Deprivation only allowed in public interest and subject to conditions prescribed by law.
European Convention on Human Rights
Proportionality test (Dalston): (1) objective importance, (2) rational connection, (3) less intrusive measures, (4) contribution outweighing effects on rights.
Dalston Projects Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 172
Judicial review of general measures: State can adopt general measures even if causing individual hardship, importance of parliamentary and judicial review, risk of abuse, feasibility of general vs. case-by-case examination, margin of appreciation.
Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2023] AC 505
Outcomes
Claimants' application for statutory review dismissed.
Court found Regulations pursued legitimate aims, were proportionate, and did not impose a total ban on remittances or correspondence. Difficulties stemmed from multiple factors beyond the Regulations.
Remittances Ground dismissed.
Regulations did not impose a total ban, interference was justified given the importance of the aim and considerations of national security and foreign policy, less intrusive measures wouldn't have sufficient effect, and contribution to objective outweighs limited interference with rights.
Correspondence Ground dismissed.
Evidence didn't show Regulations caused suspension of postal services; suspension due to political situation in Syria. Even if interference established, it would be justified due to legitimate aims, rational connection, lack of less intrusive measures, and limited impact on communication.