R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517

Court: Divisional Court

Facts: The Ministry of Defence (MoD) implemented a policy to dismiss any personnel known to be gay. Four individuals dismissed under this policy applied for judicial review (JR), arguing that the policy was irrational and violated their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Equal Treatment Directive. The Divisional Court held that the policy was not so outrageous as to be unreasonable, and the claimants subsequently appealed. Issue: Was it unreasonable for the Ministry of Defence to implement a blanket ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces?

Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that it was reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to maintain a ban on all homosexuals from the armed forces. The Court indicated that a heightened scrutiny test would apply when a decision affects human rights, requiring sufficient justification for the policy to be deemed reasonable.

Key Judicial Statements: The Court acknowledged that while a heightened scrutiny test applies to decisions impacting human rights, the MoD's policy did not meet the threshold of being deemed unreasonable despite its implications for individual rights.

💡 LevelUpLaw: This case highlights the balance between executive prerogatives and individual rights within the context of military service. It emphasizes the need for sufficient justification when policies affect human rights, reinforcing the importance of scrutiny in governmental decisions that impact personal freedoms, particularly in sensitive areas such as military personnel policies.