XX (on the application of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 60
- 2014
- United Kingdom
Topics
Public securityLegal bases
European Convention on Human RightsCourts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Freedom of Expression Freedom of religion or beliefFacts
Mrs. XX is a dissident Iranian politician who is a resident in Paris. Mrs. XX has been recognised for having close links with Iranian opposition - Mujahedin e-Khalq - that was formerly proscribed as a terrorist organisation but is now classed as non-violent. In 1997 the Home Secretary excluded Mrs. XX from the United Kingdom on the grounds that her presence in the UK would not be in the interest of public good for reasons of foreign policy and the need for the United Kingdom to take a firm stance against terrorism. In December 2010 Lord Carlile of Berriew and 2 members of the House of Lords asked the Home Secretary for a meeting to discuss lifting the exclusion to enable Mrs. XX to address meetings in the Palace of Westminster. The Home Secretary declined the request on the grounds that it would not be conducive to the public good. Lord Carlile and other members of the House of Lords launched judicial review proceedings in May 2011, arguing that the Home Secretary’s decision contravened their freedom of belief and expression rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR. Mrs. XX herself later joined as a claimant. The Home Secretary had replied to an earlier letter from Lord Carlile in which she claimed that Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not engaged but that the decision was in any event justified and proportionate. The Home Secretary issued second and third decisions in October 2011 and January 2012, supported by evidence from a Foreign Office official, stating that lifting the exclusion would cause significant damage to the UK’s interests in relation to Iran and place British people and property in Iran and the region at risk. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal held that the Home Secretary’s decision was justified and proportionate. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Home Secretary's reasons were legally irrelevant and did not share the values embodied in the ECHR.
Legal grounds
Article 9 & Article 10 of the ECHR.
Findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of 4-1, concluding that the Home Secretary's decision was proportionate, and that Article 10 of the ECHR did not outweigh the risks that she had identified, as it would have put at risk the United Kingdom’s 'fragile but imperative' relationship with Iran.