In R (TP) v SoS (2022) EWHC 123 Admin) the Court reiterates the relevant legal principles on discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR from paragraph 98 as follows.

Read more »

Art 4 of the ECHR provides that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Positive duties are implicit in Art 4: (1) a systems duty, a general city to implement measures to combat trafficking; (2) an investigation duty, to investigate situations of potential trafficking; and (3) a protection duty, or operational duty, to take steps to protect individual victims of trafficking. The protection duty is engaged when state authorities are aware of circumstances giving rise to a credible suspicion that an identified individual has been, or was at real and immediate risk of being, trafficked or exploited. See R (H) v Swindon BC (EWCA) Civ 1836.

In R (Cornerstone) v OFSTED (2021) EWCA Civ 1390 the Court of Appeal held that OFSTED had power to require Cornerstone to disapply or modify its recruitment policy for foster carers, as contained in its charitable instrument, notwithstanding the views of the Charity Commission. Different regulators May each reach their own conclusion within their respective competencies. When carrying out Inspections, OFSTED is entitled to have regard to the Equality and Human Rights Acts.
Read more »

Protocol 15 to the ECHR has entered into force. It amends the Preamble to the ECHR, to include references to (1) the subsidiarity principle and (2) the margin of appreciation doctrine. The Protocol also makes procedural changes.

In McNally v Saunders (2021) EWHC 2012 (QB) summary judgment is granted to the defendant, an online blogger, in respect of a claim against him under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The claim was brought against him by a local authority’s Director of Public Health with the support of the authority. It concerns a series of personally critical blog articles and tweets. The Judge balances on the one hand  the public interest in the Director being able to fulfil her role without being subjected to conduct which undermines her ability to do so, and on the other hand freedom of expression.

In A&B v CICB (2021) UKSC 27 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ECHR Art 14 does not cover differential treatment on any ground, but only on a ground of status: para 40. This has a broad meaning and must be generously interpreted : paras 42 and 57. However, the basis of discrimination of which complaint is made must have an existence independent of the measure under attack: para 59. Relevant status cannot be defined solely by difference in treatment: para 66. The Supreme Court also reaffirms that discrimination may arise where the State fails to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different: para 69.

In R (SC) v SoS for Work & Pensions (2021) UKSC 26 a Seven Justices Supreme Court holds that (1) it is not appropriate for domestic Courts to determine whether the UK has violated its obligations under unincorporated international law : paras 74-96; (2) in approaching proportionality under ECHR Art 14 a nuanced approach is required, which is not fully captured by a “manifestly without reasonable foundation” standard of review, and which in some circumstances calls for mush stricter scrutiny : paras 97-162; and (3) only limited use can be made of Parliamentary material in considering whether primary legislation is compatible with ECHR rights: paras 163-185.

Article 7 of the ECHR relates to no punishment without law. It provides that no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time that it was committed. In Norman v UK (2021) ECHR 601 the ECtHR holds that the common law offence of misconduct in public office  carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and not defined in statute, and subject to a Law Commission recommendation for abolition, does not infringe Article 7.

Read more »

R ( SHEAKH ) v LAMBETH LBC (2021) EWHC 1745 (Admin) concerns an unsuccessful challenge to Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ( the ROTRA ) restricting the movement of traffic within Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). The challenges that failed included that the Orders were not experimental, Tameside, failure to have regard to matters set out in Section 122 of the ROTRA, inadequate consultation, and the PSED. AS regards the PSED, Kerr J said : the function being exercised was the function of initiating an experiment, not introducing the LTNs on a permanent basis : para 145; the duty is to have regard to the need to fulfil the ambitions set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between the relevant groups : para 146; if the equality objectives are properly considered and put in the balance, it is for the decision-maker to decide how much weight they should carry : para 147; the duty is not a duty to carry out an assessment, assessment is the tool used to create the evidence base to show performance of the duty, it is not the performance of the duty itself, there is no necessary breach of the duty where no formal assessment has been done : para 148; there is noting in section 149 which prevents, in an appropriate case, performance of the duty by means of a conscious decision to undertake equality assessment on a “rolling” basis : para 163; the more “evolutionary” the function being exercised, the more readily a rolling assessment may be justified : para 164; where the function being exercised is to initiate an experiment, as in the case of a decision to make an Experimental Traffic Order, it may or may not be sufficient, depending upon the facts, to conduct the equality impact assessment on a rolling basis : para 165.

In Steer  v Stormsure Ltd (2021) EWCA CIv 887 the Court of Appeal holds that the lack of provision in the Equality Act 2010 for interim relief in discrimination or victimisation claims, as compared with dismissed whistleblower claims, does not breach Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with any of Article 6 on procedural fairness (paras 31-33), Article 8 or Article A1P1. The status of being a litigant in a particular type of case is not a protected status: paras 36-42.