This article explores the issue of blanket legal prohibitions and how these sit with proportionality under the ECHR and the HRA as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and English courts. The author first looks at Strasbourg case law and factors examined by the European Court in deciding whether a fact-insensitive law is proportionate. He then considers the domestic decision of R. (on the application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and finally analyses the difficulties this approach raises in giving effect to Convention rights under the mechanisms of the HRA
