Dr Imad Naasani, R (on the application of) & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

7 November 2024

[2024] EWHC 2827 (Admin)

High Court

Three people sued the UK government, saying sanctions against Syria made it too hard to send money and letters to their families. The court said the sanctions were for a good reason (national security) and were fair, even though they caused some problems. The court also said the problems weren't only because of the UK's sanctions; other rules and companies' decisions also played a part.

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.

Dr Imad Naasani, R (on the application of) & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Dr Imad Nassani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

LLC Synesis v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport

PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors

Eugene Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs