![[2025] UKUT 17 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
49.These four questions were later developed by Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39 at 20
49.These four questions were later developed by Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39 at 20:
… the question [of proportionality] depends on an exacting analysis of the factual case advanced in defence of the measure, in order to determine (i) whether its objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right; (ii) whether it is rationally connected to the objective; (iii) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used; and (iv) whether, having regard to these matters and to the severity of the consequences, a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community.
- Heading
- A summary of the Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Introductory matters
- The statutory framework
- The appeal provisions
- The guidance in the case law
- Mistakes of law
- The DBS’s barring decision
- A brief summary of the factual background to the appeal
- The grounds of appeal and the parties' submissions
- The oral hearing of the substantive appeal
- JA’s oral evidence at hearing
- Our assessment of the appellant’s evidence and findings of fact
- Other grounds of appeal relating to first finding of relevant conduct
- T he indecent image: second finding of relevant conduct
- Materiality
- Proportionality
- 49.These four questions were later developed by Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39 at 20
- 50.In assessing proportionality, the Upper Tribunal has ‘…to give appropriate weight to the decision of a body charged by statute with a task of expert evaluation’ (see Independent Safeguarding Author
- Conclusions