Dr Imad Naasani, R (on the application of) & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2024] EWHC 2827 (Admin)
Dr Imad Nassani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
15 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
High Court
People in the UK are suing the government because sanctions on Syria make it nearly impossible to send money or letters to their families there. A judge agreed that this might violate their human rights, and the case will continue to see if it did.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review proceedings challenging the Secretary of State's decision to maintain the Syria (Sanctions) (Exit) Regulations 2019.
- •Claimants argue the regulations violate human rights, specifically their inability to send money or correspondence to family in Syria.
- •Regulations include targeted financial sanctions prohibiting making funds available to designated persons and sectoral sanctions restricting UK institutions from dealing with Syrian financial institutions.
- •Claimants argue the regulations' practical effect, combined with risk-averse behavior by financial institutions and Royal Mail, makes sending money and letters impossible.
- •Secretary of State argues that even if there is some impact on the claimants' ability to transfer funds, this is justified and proportionate.
- •Interveners (Baroness Cox, Bishop Dr Rowan Williams, Peter Ford, and Jonathan Steele) supported the claim.
Legal Principles
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA): Requires all acts to be compatible with Convention rights.
HRA 1998
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: Sets out the purposes for which sanctions regulations can be made.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Protects various human rights, including the right to property and freedom from torture.
ICCPR
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 8 (right to private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 1 Protocol 1 (protection of property).
ECHR
Principles of justification and proportionality: A measure restricting human rights must be necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.
Case law (e.g., In re Abortion Services)
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted only on narrow grounds relating to the inability to transfer money and send letters to family in Syria.
These grounds are arguable as potential violations of Article 8 ECHR and/or Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.
The claim will proceed as a statutory review under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
This is a more appropriate procedure given the nature of the remaining claims, and the Secretary of State did not object.
Permission for judicial review refused on all other grounds.
Those grounds were not considered arguable with a realistic prospect of success.