Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493

Facts

• Applicants Smith and Grady were members of the Royal Air Force.
• They were discharged from service solely due to their sexual orientation.
• The applicants challenged the Ministry of Defence's policy as a violation of their right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Domestic courts had upheld the Ministry’s policy as justifiable, applying the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
• The case was ultimately brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Issues

1. Whether the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard was an adequate test when assessing interference with fundamental rights under the ECHR.
2. Whether the Ministry of Defence's policy of discharging service members based on their sexual orientation constituted a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.
3. Whether a more rigorous standard, such as proportionality or anxious scrutiny, should be applied by courts in cases involving Convention rights.

Decision

• The ECtHR found that the Wednesbury standard was inadequate for safeguarding Convention rights.
• The Court determined that the interference with the applicants' private lives under Article 8 required a more searching or rigorous examination than the Wednesbury test provided.
• The Court held that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the policy as necessary in a democratic society.
• It was found that the actions of the Ministry of Defence were not proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued.
• The ECtHR ruled in favour of the applicants, concluding that their Article 8 rights had been violated.

Legal Principles

• The traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness standard is insufficient for cases involving fundamental rights under the ECHR.
• Proportionality requires balancing the legitimate aim of a public authority against the impact on individuals' rights, ensuring any interference is necessary, evidence-based, and not excessive.
• The concept of "anxious scrutiny" requires heightened judicial review where fundamental rights are at stake, demanding strong justification from the state.
• Restrictions on Convention rights must be supported with compelling evidence and be proportionate to the aims pursued.

Conclusion

Smith and Grady v United Kingdom marked a significant evolution in judicial review by highlighting the limitations of Wednesbury unreasonableness, endorsing proportionality and anxious scrutiny for fundamental rights cases, and strengthening the protection of ECHR rights in domestic and European law.