Legal Concepts – Coursework
The below case comment provides a critical evaluation of proportionality in R. (Collins) v
Secretary of State for Justice1, in which should be established if the judicial test is correctly
applied and justified towards breaching a human right. Based on that, I should defend the
affirmation made by the leading heads of the proportionality test which affirms that the test vary
between being thoughtless towards significant moral factors and their limitations that connects
with human rights, making it an inappropriate tool for the human rights judgement.2 Another
affirmation which contradicts the previous is that the proportional test shelters the appropriate
moral factors regarding human rights which further confuses the judges in their decision-making
by leaving them without any further directions and help in the law.3This further causes absence
in legal judgements, having essential negative consequences.
The case concerns two applicants: Denby Collins who was trespassing B’s house on 15
December 20134 at around 3 am and B a 51 years old man, weighting 15½ stones who relaxed at
home with his family. During that time B and some members of his family confronted Denby
Collins who was seen in possessions of B’s wife’s car keys and her mobile phone.5 Therefore, B
faced down Mr Collins in a headlock for about 6 minutes without any chance to escape.6 In the
meantime, B’s wife dialled the police asking them to come immediately as ‘her husband had
1 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin)
2 Kai Moller, 'Proportionality: Challenging the critics' [2012] 10(3) International Journal of Constitutional
Law 724-731
3 Karl Laird, 'R (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice: self-defense - Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76' [2016] 6(1) Criminal Law Review 441
4 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 2
5 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 4
6 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 6
1
The below case comment provides a critical evaluation of proportionality in R. (Collins) v
Secretary of State for Justice1, in which should be established if the judicial test is correctly
applied and justified towards breaching a human right. Based on that, I should defend the
affirmation made by the leading heads of the proportionality test which affirms that the test vary
between being thoughtless towards significant moral factors and their limitations that connects
with human rights, making it an inappropriate tool for the human rights judgement.2 Another
affirmation which contradicts the previous is that the proportional test shelters the appropriate
moral factors regarding human rights which further confuses the judges in their decision-making
by leaving them without any further directions and help in the law.3This further causes absence
in legal judgements, having essential negative consequences.
The case concerns two applicants: Denby Collins who was trespassing B’s house on 15
December 20134 at around 3 am and B a 51 years old man, weighting 15½ stones who relaxed at
home with his family. During that time B and some members of his family confronted Denby
Collins who was seen in possessions of B’s wife’s car keys and her mobile phone.5 Therefore, B
faced down Mr Collins in a headlock for about 6 minutes without any chance to escape.6 In the
meantime, B’s wife dialled the police asking them to come immediately as ‘her husband had
1 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin)
2 Kai Moller, 'Proportionality: Challenging the critics' [2012] 10(3) International Journal of Constitutional
Law 724-731
3 Karl Laird, 'R (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice: self-defense - Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76' [2016] 6(1) Criminal Law Review 441
4 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 2
5 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 4
6 R. (on the application of Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) 6
1
