The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory.
Held: The nationality rules and waiver policy are maintained to ensure in the interest of national security, the loyalty of those employed at GCHQ: ‘Consequently, this decision, the content of the rules and their application are not justiciable.’
[1996] EWHC Admin 153
Bailii
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 26, Race Relations Act 1976 75(5)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Regina v Director of GCHQ ex parte Hodges QBD 20-Jul-1988
The Court accepted evidence that the positive vetting procedure operated at GCHQ was required in the interests of national security.
Held: The withdrawal of the applicant’s positive vetting clearance was not justiciable. As to the Civil . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
Cited – Kruse v Johnson QBD 16-May-1898
The validity of a by-law prohibiting the playing of music in a public place within fifty yards of any dwelling after being requested by a constable or resident of that dwelling to desist was upheld. A private citizen taxed with a criminal charge . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Begum QBD 1986
The court declared invalid a discrete part of one of the Immigration Rules which had a discriminatory effect which operated unjustly in the cases of those against whom it discriminated. . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.136701