Limits of judicial review in international relations underlined

2 October 2015 by

Ministry of Defence (Photo credit: Guardian)

Ministry of Defence (Photo credit: Guardian)


R (Nour) v Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWHC 2695 (Admin)

How far are the courts willing to go to intervene in matters of foreign affairs in order to protect human rights? Spoiler: they’re not.



The Claimant, Mr Nour, is a Sudanese human rights lawyer who claimed asylum in the UK in 2009. Concerned that the UK Government were contributing to human rights abuses by the Sudanese Armed Forces (‘SAF’), he made this fairly bold application for judicial review. It challenged the legality of an assessment made by the Government that the risks of contributing to human rights abuses could be mitigated.

Ultimately unsuccessful, the claim underscores the narrow ambit of judicial review and the courts’ unwillingness to become embroiled in issues pertaining to international relations. The challenge was to an assessment based on the ‘Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Human Rights Guidance’, (‘the OSJA Guidance’). The Government came to the conclusion that there were risks that providing training and assistance to the SAF would contribute to human rights violations but these risks could be mitigated.

Mr Justice Simon fully accepted the nature of the entity the Government was dealing with:

‘[20] It is well-documented that for more than a decade the SAF has engaged in indiscriminate and deliberate killing of civilians, mass rape and ethnic cleansing…

… The SAF’s human rights abuses are not simply the acts of rogue elements within Sudan’s army. They are part of deliberate policies to crush an insurgency and of ethnic cleansing ordered by senior members of the SAF and carried out under the leadership of its officers.’

But, looking at each stage of the decision-making process under challenge, Simon J refused to accept that the decisions were irrational.

The OSJA Guidance

William Hague, (the then-former Foreign Secretary) set out the purpose of the OSJA Guidance in its foreword. Improving security and stability in countries overseas has benefits for both citizens of the UK and of that country and that includes, he said, working with countries with questionable attitudes towards human rights. So the guidance exists to help government decision-makers balance the risks and benefits associated with helping these questionable regimes.

It provides for a four-stage process:

  • Stage One: Assess the internal situation in the host country, its stability and its attitude to human rights law and international humanitarian law (‘IHL’).
  • Stage Two: Identify the human rights and IHL risks associated with the proposed assistance.
  • Stage Three: Examine what steps can be taken to mitigate the risk that the assistance might directly or significantly contribute to any of the matters at stage 2?
  • Stage Four: Ask whether there a serious risk that the assistance might directly or significantly contribute to a violation of human rights and/or IHL?

There then comes some helpful colour coding:

  • Green if there is no risk of contributing to human rights violations or approval has already been granted.
  • Amber if there is a serious risk of contributing to human rights violations but these can be mitigated, or there is some reputational risk to the Government.
  • Red if there are serious risks and they cannot be mitigated.

Amber and Red both mean that consultation with the Minister is required.

The OSJA Assessment, 10th June 2015

This year, the Government offered assistance and training to the SAF in the form of two courses, ‘Psychology of Leadership’ and ‘Managing Defence in a Wider Security Context’. In the OSJA Assessment on 10th June, the Government gave this the Amber light: there were risks of directly or significantly contributing to a violation of human rights, but those risks could be mitigated.

According to the Government, there were concerns about the internal situation in the host country, and they made a detailed assessment of this. There were also political reputational risks of being associated with a military force such as this one. However, the government would not be providing any training to improve their military operational and combat capacity. Indeed, in the Government’s view, the courses would provide an opportunity to teach them about British values and human rights.


Mr Justice Simon made some preliminary points on justiciability and the ambit of the court’s power of review over the OSJA Assessment.

First, he regarded decisions relating to political or reputational risk to be outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Secondly, in a classic exercise of judicial deference, he held that the decision-maker was better placed to make a well-informed decision about these matters than the court so he would not intervene unless satisfied that the assessment was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational (a decision that no reasonable decision maker could have reached).

Was the decision irrational?

On all four of the Claimant’s arguments, the judge was not persuaded that that the decision was irrational.

First, the Claimant argued that the Government failed to gather information regarding the effects of training and assistance on human rights violations in the past, and this was therefore a breach of the Guidance. However, Simon J held that this was a misreading of the guidance and that the requirement was actually to consider effects of mitigation in the past. Those had been considered. There was also no Tameside duty (a common law duty of sufficient enquiry) that the judge could import into this context. It was up to the decision-maker, experienced and knowledgeable in these matters as it was, to decide what was relevant.

Secondly, the Claimant contended that it was irrational to decide that there were no risks associated with the training and assistance. But again, the judge found that the decision-maker was better placed to make these decisions and it was not for the judge to consider these irrational. Not least, from the evidence heard about the courses, there was no apparent direct or significant contribution to human rights or IHL abuses.

Thirdly, the Claimant suggested that the decision was irrational because the Government had no knowledge of whether those trained in the past were involved in human rights abuses or how the assistance affected the operational skills of the Sudanese army. Again, this was rejected. In the court’s judgment, the Government had not shied away from the human rights and IHL issues that were there, reaching a nuanced view that could not be described as irrational.

Finally, in his most optimistic argument, the Claimant suggested that the Assessment marked a change in Government policy, rendering the decision unlawful. In the OSJA Assessment under challenge, the Government said that they would not provide assistance or training that could improve ‘lethal’ operations. In previous assessments, they referred to ‘military’ operations. This, he argued, meant the Government was now prepared to assist in military operations (just not lethal ones).The judge dismissed this argument, holding that they indicated no change in Government policy.


This judgment will come as no surprise and was always going to be very difficult for the Claimant. Judicial review is limited in scope and the courts show substantial deference to the Government in matters of international politics. What’s more, judicial deference is seen to be an essential element of public law. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the British constitutional system, preventing the courts from encroaching on the legitimate (however worrying) decisions of the Government. That’s just the system that exists.

But naturally, having military relationships with such regimes is a source of great concern for human rights activists in the UK. Should the courts abandon or roll back judicial deference in order to properly uphold our human rights obligations? One wonders whether the court would be more inclined to intervene if it was the Ministry of Justice which got into a tricky relationship with an autocratic human rights-abusing regime (see Jack of Kent’s blog for more information on that).


  1. Captain Sensible says:

    Apologies I meant write Sudanese not Somali.

  2. Captain Sensible says:

    So if I understand this correctly. A Somali was given asylum in the UK and then used the UK legal system to challenge the UK government – no doubt using public funds or free legal representation. This kind of action provides fuel to those opposed to immigration and those who are against what they see as abuse of, or “mission creep” of HR law.

    There are areas where separation of the state and judiciary are required and desired. Where its felt that politics and politicians have encroached into the HR arena there are howls of protest on this blog on a regular basis. One rule for one and one for another ?

    It would seem on the face of it that the government has put in place a rational and robust decision making process and has reacted to events by changing elements of policy. The judge is not an expert on Somali conflict or international relations and if he feels there is no reason to doubt the process then why should he intervene at the request of one person ?

  3. Dan Carey says:

    Declaration of interest: I represented the Claimant in this case. But there is more to it than the mere restatement of entrenched principle that the author suggests. The point on justiciability is that the judge found that the decision WAS justiciable save only for questions of reputation (which were never challenged) (see [41]). The case is also important in establishing that assessments under the government’s OSJA policy ARE judicially reviewable. Thus the government lost on their two barrier arguments as summarised at [5] of the judgment.

    As to the government’s third argument – that the assessment was a rational one – I don’t quibble, save to say that the judge’s emphasis that the MoD had “drawn back very considerably” [23] in the kinds of assistance offered since the issue was highlighted in the press and the proceedings began is important to note. The result might have been very different had the Ministry of Defence not altered the assistance provided in this way.

    See further:

  4. ObiterJ says:

    “Judicial review is limited in scope and the courts show substantial deference to the Government in matters of international politics. What’s more, judicial deference is seen to be an essential element of public law. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the British constitutional system, preventing the courts from encroaching on the legitimate (however worrying) decisions of the Government. That’s just the system that exists.”

    Yes, that’s the system that exists! The courts ought to be more astute to hold the government to any obligations it has undertaken as part of international treaties such as the Torture Convention etc. However, we have this (undue) deference to Ministers.

  5. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: