R (Ullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 26

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The appellants, an Ahmadi preacher from Pakistan and a Roman Catholic from Vietnam, entered the UK and sought asylum, alleging fear of religious persecution. They contended that deportation would violate their right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal ruled that interference with the right to practice religion would not engage the Convention unless the interference was "flagrant."

Issue: Whether the appellants' claims under Article 9 of the ECHR could be upheld without proving that the interference with their religious freedom was "flagrant."

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, requiring the appellants to prove that the interference with their right to freedom of religion was indeed "flagrant."

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Bingham stated, “In the absence of some special circumstances, courts should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court... The duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less.” Lord Carswell added, “The adjective ‘flagrant’... may not always be easy for domestic courts to apply – one is put in mind of the difficulties which they have had in applying that of gross negligence.”

💡Leveluplaw: This case highlights the importance of adhering to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and sets a high threshold for proving violations of Article 9 regarding freedom of religion. It underscores the principle that while domestic courts may interpret rights, they must remain aligned with international standards, ensuring uniformity in the application of human rights across member states.