The appeal in GHAOUI v WALTHAM FOREST LBC (2024) EWCA Civ 405 concerned the role of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, which places duties upon local authorities in relation to homeless people.  Specifically, how should human rights considerations be factored in to the assessment for suitability of accommodation.  The Court of Appeal said, at para 36, that homelessness decisions may raise issues that engage Convention rights, but instances where a decision designed to relieve homelessness will amount to a violation will be rare. The question (para 37) is as to the lawful application of a proper definition of suitability to the circumstances of the case, identifying and weighing up relevant factors.

In SOS for BUSINESS v MERCER ( 2024 ) UKSC 12 the Supreme Court, in relation to Trade Union legislation that fails to provide protection against sanctions short of dismissal penalising participation in lawful strike action, considers Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( the interpretative presumption ) and Section 4 ( declarations of incompatibility ), and partially allows the appeal. Read more »

In WARD V SoS for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ( 2024 ) EWHC 676 ( Admin )  Lang J sets out the following principles : ( 1 ) the impact of development on the green belt is a matter of planning judgment, not law ; ( 2 ) the  law to be attached to any material consideration and all matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision-maker, not the Court; ( 3 ) under the NPPF inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances; ( 4 ) although a child’s best interests are a primary consideration they are not determinative of a planning issue. The Judge also considers Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to the special position of gypsies as a minority group.

When a breach of the PSED under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is alleged, a failure, without good reason, to follow the Equality and Human Right’s Commission Guidance can be evidence of breach of duty. A breach was found in R ( DXX ) v SSHD ( 2024 ) EWHC 579 ( Admin ). The Commission’s Guidance about equality evidence, and in particular the collection of statistical data, was not followed.

Article 6 of the ECHR provides for a fair hearing when the determination by a public authority of civil rights and obligations is engaged. However, internal disciplinary proceedings will not generally engage Article 6.

Read more »

Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects the general right of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, and a specific right to form and join Trade Unions which applies in more limited circumstances. In INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN v CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ( 2023 ) UKSC 43 the Supreme Court addresses whether there is an employment relationship for the purposes of Article 11 and whether the provision of Article 11 which protects Trade Union activity applies.

DALSTON PROJECTS LTD V SoS for TRANSPORT ( 2023 ) EWHC 1885 ( Admin ) considered proportionality in the context of interference with property rights from para 78. A proportionality challenge is ultimately a matter for the Court to determine and to do so with reference to all the information before it. That involves considering the substance of the decision, not the process of its making. Moreover, in coming to a judgment on proportionality, a court is not limited to assessing the decision-maker’s process, thinking or assessment at the time the decisions were made but can consider the matter in more general terms. However, although the Court itself determines proportionality objectively on the basis of its own assessment, a margin of discretion will be afforded to the decision-maker, to the extent that it has itself considered the relevant issues at the time of the challenged decision.

In R ( DK ) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON ( 2023 ) EWHC 1833 ( Admin ) the claimant came came to the Uk and claimed asylum as an unaccompanied child. The Council duly accommodated and looked after him as a child in need. However, when he reached 21 and his asylum claim had been rejected the Council refused to support him any further. They relied upon Schedule 3 to NIAA 2002. He claimed that the Council should have carried out a human rights assessment.

Sir Ross Cranston ruled at paras 57-61 inc that what a local authority is required to do is to consider a request for the exercise of a power, or the performance of a duty, when support is requested by a person who but for NIAA Schedule 3 would be entitled to support. In applying the Schedule 3 prohibition the authority must consider that this does not breach ECHR rights. That may or may not involve a human rights assessment. A blanket refusal will not do.

In JONES v BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (2023) UKSC 27 a 7 Justice Supreme Court holds (1) that Article 6 does not require the criminal standard of proof to be satisfied in respect of proof that a person has engaged in or has encouraged or assisted gang-related violence or gang-related drug dealing activity or proof that a person has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour, and (2) that Parliament has devised statutory schemes which conform with the requirements of a fair hearing under Article 6 under Section 34 0f the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and Part 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour etc Act 2014.

The freedom to (1) manifest religious belief AND (2) express views relating to that belief are essential rights in a democracy and are protected by the ECHR and the Equality Act 2010. The question on manifestation is whether there is a sufficiently close or direct nexus between an individual religious beliefs and any particular expression of views. In HIGGS v FARMOR’S SCHOOL (2023) EAT 89 the President of the EAT, from paragraph 79 in the Judgment reaffirms that in considering disciplinary action against the individual it is necessary to determine whether the reason for taking the action is (1) because of, or related to, the manifestation of beliefs, which renders the action prohibited, OR (2) because the manner of the manifestation was objectionable, which may make the action permissible. The freedom to manifest belief is not absolute. It is a qualified right. It can be limited to the extent that the limitation is prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. A proportionate balance has to be struck between an interference with fundamental rights and the legitimate interests of others.