References: [2011] EWCA Civ 907, [2011] UKHRR 1048
Links: Bailii
Coram: Rix LJ, Sir Henry Brooke, Dame Janet Smith
Ratio: The court considered the arrangements for providing public support for the costs of funerals. The claimant’s son had died whilst she was in prison. Assistance had been refused because, as a prisoner, she was not receiving benefits. She complained that the refusal violated her right not to be discriminated against.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal failed. The system did not amount to direct discrimination: ‘The issue at the heart of this case is not whether prisoners are wrongfully denied access to income support for reasons referable to their status as prisoners, but whether they are wrongfully denied access to a funeral payment for such reasons. The short answer is that they are not. If the status in question was not ‘prisoner’ tout seul, but ‘a prisoner who is not entitled to income support’ then the answer would be different. But being a prisoner tout seul did not exclude Ms Stewart from entitlement to all qualifying benefits, and it did not therefore exclude her from entitlement to a funeral payment. Being a prisoner was not ‘the reason why’ she was refused a funeral payment.’
The refusal was accepted to be indirect discrimination. Nevertheless it was justified, because the discrimination was not against prisoners alone, and any adjustment would ‘in turn be subjected to complaint from all the other excluded groups who would complain that they were being unlawfully discriminated against, and in my judgment a decision to that effect in this case would justly expose the court to the charge that it is trespassing in territory in an area of social policy that is properly the preserve of the legislature.’
Statutes: Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 46(1), Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992 138, Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 7, Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 2005 7, European Convention on Human Rights 14
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL ([1990] 3 WLR 55, [1990] 2 AC 751, [1990] 2 All ER 607, [1990] ICR 554, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 6, [1990] IRLR 288)
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . . - Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL (House of Lords, Bailii, [2003] UKHL 11, Times 04-Mar-03, [2003] ICR 337, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2003] IRLR 285, [2003] NI 174, [2003] 2 All ER 26)
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . . - Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 63, HL, Times, [2008] 3 WLR 1023, [2009] 2 All ER 556, [2009] HRLR 5, [2009] PTSR 336, [2009] UKHRR 117, [2009] 1 AC 311)
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . . - Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR ((2005) 41 EHRR SE 295, Bailii, [2005] ECHR 924)
. . - Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 37, Times 27-May-05, House of Lords, [2005] 2 WLR 1369, [2005] UKHRR 1185, [2005] 4 All ER 545, [2006] 1 AC 173, [2005] HRLR 23, 18 BHRC 677)
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . . - Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 56, [2010] UKHRR 497, [2010] 1 FCR 630)
The court was asked as to entitlement to child tax credit where parents were separated but shared the care of the children.
Held: The discretion to be accorded to the legislature or executive is especially wide where the discrimination is . . - Cited – Shelley v The United Kingdom ECHR (23800/06, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 108, (2008) 46 EHRR SE16)
Discrimination on grounds of prisoner status was recognised as falling within ‘other’ status in Article 14: ‘[T]he Court would observe that being a convicted prisoner may be regarded as placing the individual in a distinct legal situation, which . . - Cited – Esfandiari and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 282)
The claimant argued that the funeral benefits regime unlawfully discriminated against migrants because the 1987 Regulations did not permit payments to be made for a burial abroad, except as provided for by EU law.
Held: The argument was . . - Cited – Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1303, Times 17-Nov-05, [2006] 1 WLR 3202)
The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 28 December 2018
Ref: 442416
The post Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 29 Jul 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.