Judgment in Universal Credit minimum income floor challenge
R (Charmain Parkin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2356 (Admin)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to the Regulations providing for a deemed income – the minimum income floor – to be used to assess gainfully self-employed universal credit claimants’ income instead of their actual income. This has the effect of reducing many low-earning self-employed claimants’ entitlement to Universal Credit. Ms Parkin’s evidence was that she had been forced to rely on charity and food banks as a result.
The claim was brought on the basis that the relevant Regulations were unlawfully discriminatory, were irrational and had not been passed in accordance with the Secretary of State’s public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, s 149. The Court concluded that although employment and self-employment were each a ‘status’ within the meaning of ECHR, art 4 the two groups were not in an analogous position and that, in any event, the measure was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. As such, although employed and self-employed Universal Credit claimants were treated differently, this was not unlawful discrimination contrary to art 14. The Court also held that the relevant Regulations were not irrational and that due regard had been paid to the matters set out in Equality Act 2010, s 149.
Court rejects judicial review of police actions to protect claimants from threats to kill
R (LXD & Ors) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2019] EWHC 1685 (Admin)
This matter concerned an application for judicial review of ‘ongoing failure [by the defendant] to take steps to protect the claimants from direct threats to kill made against them by associates of the first claimant’s ex-partner’. The claimants contended that the defendant was failing his duties under ECHR, arts 2 and 3, and that their art 8 rights were being infringed. They also asserted that defendant’s decisions, including to classify the death threats against them as ‘standard threats,’ were irrational, unlawful and in breach of policy.
The Court dismissed the claim.
The Court held that the evidence showed that the police took the threats seriously. It concluded that the evidence did not show there to be a real and immediate risk to the life of the claimants requiring the defendant to take steps to take ‘preventive operational measures to protect’ them. As such the defendant was not acting in breach of its duties under art 2. The Court was also unable to identify any infringement by the police of the claimants’ art 3 or 8 rights. While it found the defendant to have misapplied his threats to life policy, it found that such misapplication was immaterial and that no relief should be granted.
Secretary of State had not had due regard to Equality Act 2010, s 149(1)(b) when widening Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme
Turani & Ors v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1586 (Admin)
The application for judicial review of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (“the Scheme”), brought by four Palestinian refugees from Syria, who fled the conflict to Lebanon, succeeds. The Court determined that the Secretary of State had failed to have due regard to the equality need listed in Equality Act 2010, s 149(1)(b) in determining to […]
High Court orders inquiry into Brook House abuse must be effective under ECHR, art 3
MA & BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1523 (Admin)
This matter arose following the airing of a Panorama documentary in 2017 showing footage secretly recorded by a Detention Officer in immigration detention centre Brook House in which officers were seen verbally and physically abusing detainees.
The claimants initially brought an action challenging the failure of the defendant to order an investigation in compliance with his duty under ECHR, art 3. The defendant subsequently asked the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) to conduct a bespoke Special Investigation into the matters raised by the Panorama programme. However, this investigation had no powers to compel witness or hold public hearings, and there was no properly funded representation for the claimants.
As such, the court found in favour of the claimants. The court considered that, due to the real risk that former G4S staff would not attend the investigation voluntarily to give evidence, and that this would result in the investigation not being effective under art 3, the PPO must have power to compel witness attendance. It also determined that, to secure full accountability and to protect the claimants’ interests, the PPO must have the power and funding to order when hearings ought to be in public. Finally, the court concluded that the claimants must be afforded properly-funded representation to enable them to review and comment on witness evidence and to direct lines of enquiry for the PPO.
High Court finds CPS were right not to prosecute manslaughter of 24 year old woman
R (Tracey John-Baptiste) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] EWHC 1130 (Admin)
A claim for judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to prosecute S for manslaughter, following the death of the claimant’s daughter. The deceased was 24 years old and died from a fall from the balcony of her fifth floor flat in Gainsborough House in Enfield on 21 August 2015. The claimant argued that the CPS’ decision not to prosecute S was irrational, as two incompatible views of what occurred should have been put to the jury to decide. However, the Court found that the DPP exercised her judgment by making an assessment of the strength of the evidence against the defendant by the end of the trial, together with the likely defences. Therefore, it was impossible to find her decision not to prosecute irrational.Karon Monaghan QC acted for the claimant. Alex Bailin QC advised the CPS.