Tariq v Home Office [2011]
Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Facts: In Tariq v Home Office [2015] UKSC 36, Tariq (T) was employed by the Home Office. After several family members were arrested in a terrorism investigation, T's security clearance was revoked, leading to his suspension. In the interest of national security, the employment tribunal used a closed material procedure to determine T’s case under section 10(6) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that T should be given enough information about the investigation to challenge the claims against him. The Court of Appeal made a similar declaration in T's favor. The Home Office appealed this declaration.
Issue: Is there a requirement under Article 6 ECHR that T should be provided with sufficient information about the allegations against him to instruct his legal counsel and challenge those allegations during a closed material procedure?
Held: The Supreme Court allowed the Home Office's appeal and set aside the declaration of the Court of Appeal. It ruled that there is no requirement to provide the claimant with sufficient information to instruct his legal counsel during a closed material procedure.
Key Judicial Statement: Lord Mance distinguished this case from AF (No 3) and A v UK, emphasizing that a balancing exercise between the claimant's right to procedural fairness and the public interest must be conducted. The Court found that the closed material procedure was necessary to protect national security and that the special advocate procedure provided adequate protections for the applicant, making the disclosure of further information unnecessary.
💡 Leveluplaw: underscores the distinction between civil claims and cases involving personal liberty. The ruling confirms that while closed material procedures can limit access to information, they can still provide sufficient procedural safeguards through special advocates. The decision emphasizes the need for a balance between individual rights and public interest in national security matters, particularly in employment tribunal proceedings.