R v Home Secretary, ex parte Brind [1991]

Directives
in existence against broadcasting of words spoken by members of terrorist
groups.
Aim
was deny terrorist organisations any appearance of political legitimacy and to
prevent intimidation.
One
of grounds of challenge was that directives were disproportionate to end sought.
House
of Lords rejected proportionality argument.
To
apply doctrine of proportionality would be for court to substitute its own
judgement of what was needed to achieve particular object with that of Secretary
of State, on whom duty laid by Parliament.
However
Lord Bridge agreed with Lord Roskill that proportionality might at some point
be incorporated within our law.
Lord
Roskill did not believe that this was appropriate case for such a development.
[Interesting
dicta on relevance of rights at common law.
Lord
Bridge opined that despite absence of code of rights in domestic law, ‘any
restriction of the right to freedom of expression requires to be justified and
nothing less than an important competing public interest will be sufficient to
justify it’]