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.
Proceedings brought against the Commissioner of Police for false imprisonment and assault beyond the scope of LAPSO 2012
Director of Legal Aid Casework v Sunita Sisangia [2016] EWCA Civ 24
Whether the Director of Legal Aid Casework was entitled to deny the respondent’s legal aid application in relation to proceedings brought against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for false imprisonment and assault as being beyond the scope of the LAPSO Act 2012, and in particular Sch 1, para 21.
Historically discriminatory denial of nationality to a foreign offender did not mean deportation order should be revoked
R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 22
Whether the discriminatory denial of nationality to a foreign offender prior the commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998 meant that the deportation order against him should be revoked.
The Police Misconduct Panel a judicial body with immunity from suit
P v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 2
Appeal against the decision of the EAT to dismiss the appellant’s challenge to the employment tribunal judgment. The employment tribunal had struck out the appellant’s disability discrimination claim against a Police Misconduct Panel. The tribunal had decided that the panel was a judicial body, and thus enjoyed immunity from suit. Karon Monaghan QC and Thomas Linden QC were involved in this case.
Police powers to stop, detain, and search travellers incompatible with ECHR
R (Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 6
The appellant was detained by police at Heathrow, pursuant to Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 7, para 2(1), and had journalistic material taken from him. He argued that these powers were not used for permitted purposes and contravened ECHR, art 10. The court dismissed the appeal, but found that the stop powers were incompatible with art 10(2), when used for journalistic materials.