Court: Court of Appeal
The Parole Board guidance on re-release test was correct and lawful
R (King) v Parole Board for England & Wales [2016] EWCA Civ 51
Appellant challenged the finding that the parole board had applied the correct test when it decided not to re-release him, after he had been recalled to custody as a result of re-offending. Held: The Parole Board guidance as to the test to be applied was correct and lawful.
Social security data retention and usage policies did not violate ECHR, art 8 and 14, where transgender people were concerned
R (C) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 47
Appellant challenged the decision that certain social security policies did not contravene ECHR, arts 8 and 14 where transgender people were concerned. Held: It was not disproportionate to retain the data as to the appellant’s previous gender, given the legitimate objectives of fraud detection and pension calculation.
Local Health Boards in Wales were not liable for ordinary social care services provided by registered nurses in care homes
R (Forge Care Homes Ltd & Ors) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 26
The court allowed the Welsh Local Health Boards’ appeal against a decision that their determination of a flat-rate payment to care homes was unlawful as it did not reflect the estimated cost of the social care element.
Refusal to recategorise prisoner was not irrational
Secretary of State for Justice v R (Weddle) [2016] EWCA Civ 38
The appellant Secretary of State challenged an Administrative Court decision that the lack of appropriate rehabilitation courses for the respondent was irrational, as it prevented him from proving that he presented a reduced risk to the public. The respondent argued that this deficiency precluded him from gaining recategorisation. Hugh Southey QC was involved in this […]
Elements of ‘Bedroom Tax’ unlawful
R (Rutherford & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and another case [2016] EWCA Civ 29
The Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in removing part of the appellants’ means-tested housing benefit, under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Regulation B13. The decision not to allow the appellants, a domestic abuse victim and grandparents with a disabled child, to have an additional bedroom amounted to discrimination on grounds of gender and disability, contrary to ECHR, art 14.
