R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Judgment Date2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWHC 1761 (Admin)
Date2006

House of Lords

Before Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Regina (RJM)
and
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Disability discriminatory policy is justified

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
21 cases
  • R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • Invalid date
    ......) 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)
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 May 2012
    ...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......
  • R (Purdy) v DPP
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 30 July 2009
    ...Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 AC 465, paras 28, 42-45, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill; R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63, [2009] 1 AC 311, para 64, per Lord Neuberger of 33 As for the question whether the requirements of arti......
  • R (Bibi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department R (Ali) v Same(Liberty and Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants intervening)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 16 December 2011
    ...... discrimination of those in the position of the claimants as compared to EU nationals and workers and their third country nationals. They did so in the light of the decision in March 2011 of the ... replaced by a single-question approach in R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 AC 173 , particularly at [3] and [31] and subsequent English authorities such as R ...In R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63 , Lord Neuberger (at [47]) considered ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT