R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1761 (Admin) |
| Date | 2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
House of Lords
Before Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
The policy of disentitling persons without accommodation from receiving the disability premium to which they would otherwise be entitled in their income support amounted to discrimination within article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights but was lawful as it could be justified on policy grounds.
The House of Lords so held in dismissing an appeal by a homeless person, RJM, from the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Maurice Kay)WLR((2007) 1 WLR 3067) upholding the dismissal by Mr James Goudie, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, of his claim for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to cease to pay disability premium for the period during which RJM was without accommodation within the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations (SI 1987 No 1967).
RJM had claimed that the non-contributory premium was capable of being a possession within article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention so that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was engaged, that withholding the premium by reason of his homelessness was discriminatory on a ground relating to a status contrary to article 14 and that the discrimination was unjustified.
Mr Richard Drabble, QC and Miss Zoe Leventhal for RJM; Mr John Howell, QC and Ms Nathalie Lieven, QC, for the secretary of state; Mr Rabinder Singh, QC, for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, intervening by written submissions.
LORD NEUBERGER said that there was no doubt that paragraph 6 discriminated against disabled persons who qualified for income support and were without accommodation as against such persons who did have accommodation.
The secretary of state had contended, first, that RJM's claim was not within the scope of article 1 of the First Protocol, as he had neither a right nor a legitimate expectation to a disability premium, and indeed the absence of any such right was the basis of his complaint.
However, the European Court of Human Rights had ruled in Stec and Others v United Kingdom (Application Nos 65731/01 and 65900/01)TLR (The Times April 23,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
......) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2008] 4 All ER 1127 and R (on the application of RJM (FC)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] 3 WLR 1023 considered. . (2) Applying a ......
-
Ministry of Health v Peter Atkinson (on Behalf of The Estate of Susan Atkinson)
...choices. This idea is often seen as having particular resonance in areas such as social and economic policy. For example, in R (RJM) v Work and Pensions, 156 the House of Lords was considering a challenge to one aspect of an income support scheme for persons unable to work because of mental......
-
Jane Stevens v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...grounds, it is in the best position to judge (see, e.g., Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 at paragraph 52, R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63 at [56]–[57] per Lord Neuberger, R (S) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 1810 (Admin) and Knowles ......
-
R (Harrison) v Secretary of State for Health
...as was explained by Lord Hope of Craighead in Clift (supra [48]) and by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury in R (on the application of RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] 3 WLR 1023 [42]. In that case, Lord Neuberger explained that the concept of personal characteristic and st......