Suryananda, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers

Suryananda, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers

The government failed to lawfully exercise its discretion and did not properly conduct the balancing exercise required by Article 9(2) ECHR. The decisions to slaughter Shambo were based on impermissibly narrow public health objectives, did not weigh the serious interference with the Community's right to manifest...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Swami Suryananda as a representative of the Community of the Many Names of God; Defendant: The Welsh Ministers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; decisions quashed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Religion, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Animal Health, Public Health
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Freedom of Religion Judicial Review Proportionality Animal Health Public Health

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swami Suryananda as a representative of the Community of the Many Names of God

Claimant

The Welsh Ministers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions to slaughter the bullock 'Shambo' were made in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of religion)
  2. 2 Whether the government properly balanced the right to manifest religious beliefs against public health objectives
  3. 3 Whether the government exercised its statutory discretion lawfully under the Animal Health Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The government failed to lawfully exercise its discretion and did not properly conduct the balancing exercise required by Article 9(2) ECHR. The decisions to slaughter Shambo were based on impermissibly narrow public health objectives, did not weigh the serious interference with the Community's right to manifest their religious beliefs, and did not consider whether less intrusive measures could achieve legitimate aims. The decisions were therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decisions quashed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted
  • Decisions of 3 May 2007 and 3 July 2007 to slaughter Shambo declared unlawful and quashed