Boughton & Ors (R on the application of) v HM Treasury

General taxation imposed neutrally does not, on the Strasbourg authorities considered, engage Article 9 merely because public revenue may support military expenditure contrary to a taxpayer’s pacifist or religious convictions. Where that authority forms a clear and consistent line, UK courts should respect it unless Strasbourg modifies or abandons it. A judicial-review claim that depends on reopening the issue may therefore be refused at the permission stage, without requiring the Treasury to justify the alleged interference or establish a segregated fund. The applicants remain free to express and protest their beliefs peacefully.

Seven tax-paying pacifists sought judicial review of HM Treasury’s refusal on 27 January 2005 to create a separate account into which tax could be paid for non-military purposes. They did not seek exemption or reduction, but objected to tax entering a single fund partly used for military purposes. Collins J refused permission, holding that the claim had no arguable possibility of success because Article 9(1) was not engaged under the Strasbourg authorities. After Sedley LJ adjourned the permission application for consideration by the full court, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Strasbourg line on general taxation left any reasonable prospect of success.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal and refused renewed permission to bring judicial-review proceedings. The claim was bound to fail at the preliminary issue of Article 9(1) engagement.
2. Article 9(1). The decisive Strasbourg authority was C v United Kingdom (1983) 37 DR 142, which rejected a similar objection to general taxation. The Commission’s approach treated taxation as a general and neutral obligation that did not, merely because revenue might fund military expenditure, interfere with the manifestation of religious or philosophical belief. The court regarded that decision, together with the other Strasbourg authorities, as sufficiently coherent and consistent.
3. Effect of the Strasbourg line. Even if aspects of the reasoning might be regarded as strict, or legally and logically unsound, the established line had to be respected by the courts of the United Kingdom. Any challenge to that line was properly a matter for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Collins J had therefore correctly refused permission.
4. Unresolved issues. Because the claim failed at the engagement stage, the court did not require HM Treasury to justify its refusal to establish a special fund. It expressed no view on the arguments concerning interference, proportionality or justification under Article 9(2).
5. Residual rights. The applicants remained entitled to manifest their pacifist beliefs through peaceful protest against war and public statements explaining that their tax was paid under compulsion and protest.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ adjourned the permission application for consideration by the full court. The full court subsequently refused permission to appeal.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Collins J refused permission for judicial review, holding that the claim had no arguable possibility of success because Article 9(1) was not engaged.