Neill LJ explained article 8 of the Convention in the light of Brind: ‘(1) Article 10 is not part of English domestic law. It is therefore not necessary for the Minister when exercising an administrative decision conferred on him by Parliament to exercise that discretion in accordance with the provisions of Art.10. Nor will a court when reviewing the decision of the Minister interfere with it on the ground that he did not have regard to the provisions of Art.10 . .
(2) Nevertheless, where fundamental human rights including freedom of expression are being restricted the Minister will need to show that there is an important competing public interest which is sufficient to justify the restriction.
(3) The primary judgment as to whether the competing public interest justifies the particular restriction is for the Minister. The court is only entitled to exercise a secondary judgment by asking whether a reasonable Minister, on the material before him, could reasonably make that primary judgment . .
(4) . . As the law stands at present it seems to me to be clear that though the Minister is required to justify the restriction imposed by reference to an important and sufficient competing public interest the court, when reviewing the Minister’s decision is not entitled (to use Lord Lowry’s phrase) to lower ‘the threshold of unreasonableness.”
(1992) 5 Admin LR 785,  ALR 785
England and Wales
Explained – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Human Rights, Judicial Review
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272887