Home Office v Tariq: SC 13 Jul 2011

The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen by the claimant. Each party appealed against an order allowing evidence to be given on a ‘gist’ basis -between the provision to the claimant of full details of the defendant’s evidence and of none.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded, and the cross appeal was rejected (Lord Kerr dissenting). The rights asserted were ones created under European law, and therefore the court must ask whether the answers provied by the Regulations satisfied the duties to ensure respect for those rights. In European Law, the use of a closed material procedure by the Employment tribunal was lawful, and the claimant’s appeal was dismissed.
It was not correct that the claimant knew nothing at all of the nature of the objections to his employment. They had been stated in general terms.
The Court of Appeal’s decision had not had the case of Kennedy before it. There are competing rights and duties, and a balance to be struck particular to the circumstances.
Lord Hope said there are ‘no hard edged rules in this area of the law . . the principles that lie at the heart of the case pull in different directions. It must be a question of degree, balancing the considerations on one side against those on the other, as to how much weight is to be given to each of them. I would hold that, given the nature of the case, the fact that the disadvantage to Mr Tariq that the closed procedure will give rise to can to some extent be minimised and the paramount need to protect the integrity of the security vetting process, the balance is in favour of the Home Office.’
Lord Kerr said that the witholding of information deployed before a court from one party was a breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial. That could be achieved only by the clearest of legislative provisions.
Lord Mance JSC distinguished those cases involving liberty from others: ‘the reasoning in para 217 of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in A v United Kingdom emphasises the context of that decision, the liberty of the individual. Detention, control orders and freezing orders impinge directly on personal freedom and liberty in a way to which Mr Tariq cannot be said to be exposed. In R (AHK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Practice Note) [2009] 1 WLR 2049, a claim for judicial review of the refusal of an application for British citizenship, the Court of Appeal distinguished A v United Kingdom on the ground that it was focusing on detention. In my opinion, it was justified in making this distinction. An applicant for British citizenship has, of course, an important interest in the appropriate outcome of his or her application. Mr Tariq also has an important interest in not being discriminated against which is entitled to appropriate protection; and this is so although success in establishing discrimination would be measured in damages, rather than by way of restoration of his security clearance (now definitively withdrawn) or of his position as an immigration officer. But the balancing exercise called for in para 217 of the judgment in A v United Kingdom depends on the nature and weight of the circumstances on each side, and cases where the state is seeking to impose on the individual actual or virtual imprisonment are in a different category to the present, where an individual is seeking to pursue a civil claim for discrimination against the state which is seeking to defend itself. ‘
Lord Dyson JSC, citing previous case law, distinguished between the absolute right to a fair trial and the constituent elements of a fair trial process, which are not absolute or fixed.
Lord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr , Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson
[2011] UKSC 35, UKSC 2010/0106, [2011] UKHRR 1060, [2012] 1 AC 452, [2011] 3 WLR 322, [2012] 1 All ER 58, [2012] 1 CMLR 2, [2011] IRLR 843, [2011] HRLR 37, [2011] ICR 938
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1861) 54, Employment Tribunals Act 1996 10(6)
England and Wales
At EATTariq v The Home Office EAT 16-Oct-2009
(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules . .
Appeal fromHome Office v Tariq CA 4-May-2010
The claimant began proceedings against his employer, the Immigration Service after his security clearance was withdrawn. He complained that the respondent had been allowed by the Tribunal to present evidence he was not himself allowed to see and . .
CitedPeterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State ECJ 14-Dec-1995
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedCommission v Italy (Law Relating To Undertakings) ECJ 8-Apr-2008
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Public supply contracts Directives 93/36/EEC and 77/62/EEC Award of contracts without prior publication of a notice ‘Agusta’ and ‘Agusta Bell’ . .
CitedJohnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary ECJ 15-May-1986
The principles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights must be taken into consideration in community law. The principle of effective judicial control laid down in article 6 of Council Directive 76/207, a principle which . .
CitedUnibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitie-kanslern (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 13-Mar-2007
(Grand Chamber) Principle of judicial protection National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law Procedural autonomy Principles of equivalence and effectiveness . .
CitedKadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
CitedKadi v Council and Commission (Common Foreign and Security Policy) ECJ 16-Jan-2008
ECJ Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – United Nations Security Council . .
CitedOrganisation Des Modjahedines Du Peuple D’Iran v Council (Common Foreign And Security Policy) ECFI 12-Dec-2006
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Rights of the defence – . .
CitedA and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
CitedKlass And Others v Germany ECHR 6-Sep-1978
The claimant objected to the disclosure by the police of matters revealed during their investigation, but in this case, it was held, disclosure even after the event ‘might well jeopardise the long-term purpose that originally prompted the . .
CitedMalone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. . .
CitedLeander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
CitedEsbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedVilho Eskelinen And Others v Finland ECHR 19-Apr-2007
Even where article 6(1) applied to a field falling within the traditional sphere of public law, this did not in itself determine how the various guarantees of article 6 should be applied to such disputes. . .
CitedKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AHK and Others (Practice Note) CA 2-Apr-2009
Sir Anthony Clarke MR gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a special advocate could be appointed, describing the roles of the special advocate representing a party who is not allowed to see closed material: ‘They are well understood and . .
CitedSrl CILFIT v Ministero Della Sanita ECJ 6-Oct-1982
ECJ The obligation to refer to the Court of Justice questions concerning the interpretation of the EEC Treaty and of measures adopted by the community institutions which the third paragraph of article 177 of the . .
CitedUzukauskas v Lithuania ECHR 6-Jul-2010
ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file . .
CitedMurungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
CitedPrince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedStott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
CitedCarnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .

Cited by:
CitedAl-Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
CitedReprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.441628