Anzhelika Khan v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

The Padfield principle concerns statutory purpose, not the efficacy of an individual decision. A discretionary power is lawfully exercised when used to further the legislation’s objects rather than an extraneous purpose.

A sanctions regime permitting designation by association is compatible with Convention rights where the qualifying relationship is defined, the statutory purpose is confined and effective safeguards exist. Proportionality remains fact-sensitive. The court must decide that issue for itself, while giving appropriate respect to executive assessments concerning foreign relations.

A reviewing court need not conduct a full merits review to secure effective access to justice. However, a fair and efficient licensing system is fundamentally important where designation freezes the assets needed for ordinary living expenses.

The appellant, a UK-resident British citizen, was designated under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 because she was the wife of, and had received substantial financial benefits from, a person involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Russian Government. She challenged the February 2023 decision to maintain her designation following administrative review.

Cockerill J dismissed her claim under section 38(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: [2024] EWHC 361 (Admin). The appellant contended that the Secretary of State had misunderstood the statutory purpose, that designation by association was incompatible with Convention rights, that her individual designation was disproportionate and that judicial review under section 38 provided insufficient access to a court.

The Court of Appeal also considered the effect of delays and deficiencies in the licensing arrangements for basic living expenses.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Padfield principle required the designation power to be exercised to further the objects and policy of the legislation, rather than for an extraneous purpose. It did not require the Secretary of State to decide that this individual designation was likely to further the statutory purpose. That submission confused statutory purpose with efficacy. Efficacy could instead be tested through rationality or proportionality.

2. Regulation 6(2)(d) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 satisfied the requirement that interferences with Convention rights be in accordance with law. The regime defined association, confined designation to a prescribed purpose and contained safeguards including reasonable suspicion, published reasons, administrative review, judicial challenge, exceptions, licensing and the duty to act compatibly with Convention rights.

3. Designation by association was rationally connected to the sanctions objective. A perfect fit was unnecessary. Association-based sanctions could isolate involved persons, discourage financial support, prevent circumvention and increase peaceful pressure on a hostile state. A challenge to the legislation as inherently disproportionate also failed because proportionality depended on the circumstances of each designation.

4. The High Court had itself determined proportionality and had permissibly given considerable respect to executive assessments concerning foreign relations. It had balanced the sanctions objective against the grave effects on the appellant and her children. It had also treated the children’s best interests as a primary, but not paramount, consideration.

5. The licensing difficulties did not invalidate the February 2023 maintenance decision because appropriate licences had by then been obtainable and obtained. Singh LJ nevertheless considered the absence of immediate basic-needs provision troubling. Dingemans LJ held that failing to provide for ordinary living expenses, including food, upon designation was neither reasonable nor fair. Underhill LJ emphasised the fundamental importance of a fair and efficient licensing system operating under defensible, clearly stated principles.

6. Permission was granted on the access-to-court ground, but that ground was rejected. Review under section 38(2) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 gives an effective judicial remedy. The court determines Convention compatibility for itself, while giving due respect and weight to the executive, and Article 6 does not invariably require substitution of the court’s assessment on every factual and policy matter.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. Permission to advance the fourth ground was granted, but that ground was also rejected: [2025] EWCA Civ 41.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Cockerill J dismissed the challenge to the decision maintaining the appellant’s designation: [2024] EWHC 361 (Admin).