- 33
A
B
-
the facts, their Lordships held that it was for the executive to decide
whether the requirements of national security outweighed those of fairness
for the consultation process with trade unions.
C
factual basis of the decision had been established.
E
59.
F
B
Giving deference to the
executive, the court approached it as a matter of evidence to consider if the
D
A
C
D
In Rehman, the Home Secretary refused the appellant’s
application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK and gave him a
E
F
deportation notice on the ground that his association with an organization
G
H
involved in terrorist activities in the Indian subcontinent. Lord Hoffmann
at [50] said that whether something is or is not in the interests of national
G
H
security is not a matter of judicial decision but is entrusted to the executive.
I
J
He observed at [53] that the decision as to whether support for a particular
movement in a foreign country would be prejudicial to UK’s national
I
J
security might involve delicate questions of foreign policy. They were all
K
L
M
N
within the competence of responsible ministers and not the court. The
court was not entitled to substitute its own view for that of the
decision-maker on questions of pure expediency.
At [54], he listed three
functions of the court in national security cases.
First, the court must
ensure that the factual basis for the executive’s opinion that the decision is
in the interests of national security is established by evidence.
O
P
K
L
M
N
Second,
the court may reject the executive’s opinion on the ground that it is one
which no reasonable minister can in the circumstances reasonably have
O
P
held. Third, where the issues do not lie within the exclusive province of
Q
R
the executive.32
For such issues, he gave as an example the question as
to whether deporting someone would infringe his fundamental right against
Q
R
S
S
T
T
32
U
V
Mr Yu also asks us to note that in Begum, the English Supreme Court at [70] and [71] applied a
similar approach in the context of the UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
U
V