Assessing Discrimination under Article 14: The Unlawfulness of the 'Same Roof' Rule in Criminal Injuries Compensation

Assessing Discrimination under Article 14: The Unlawfulness of the 'Same Roof' Rule in Criminal Injuries Compensation

Introduction

The case of JT v. First-Tier Tribunal ([2018] EWCA Civ 1735) addresses significant issues surrounding the eligibility for compensation under the UK's criminal injuries compensation scheme. The appellant, JT, a survivor of prolonged sexual abuse by her stepfather, challenged the rejection of her compensation claim based on the 'same roof' rule. This rule prohibits awards for criminal injuries sustained before October 1, 1979, if the victim and the assailant were living together as family members at the time of the incident. JT contended that this rule constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal reviewed JT's appeal against the First-Tier Tribunal's decision to deny her compensation based on the 'same roof' rule. JT argued that this rule discriminated against her, violating Article 14 of the ECHR, which mandates the prohibition of discrimination without justifiable reasons. The Court examined the applicability of Article 14 in this context, analyzing whether the 'same roof' rule constitutes unlawful discrimination and whether it can be objectively justified. Ultimately, the Court held that the 'same roof' rule was indeed incompatible with Article 14, as it arbitrarily and unreasonably excluded a group of victims who suffered severe crimes, particularly those involving familial abuse.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior case law to elucidate the application of Article 14 in discrimination claims. Key cases include:

  • Stec v United Kingdom (2005): Established that Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) applies to welfare benefits, entitling individuals to seek discrimination claims under Article 14.
  • Fabris v France (2013): Demonstrated that Article 14 applies to non-contributory benefits, reinforcing the broad interpretation of "possessions."
  • R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008]: Affirmed that Article 14's "other status" is interpreted broadly, encompassing various personal characteristics.
  • MA v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2017]: Although not persuasive to the Court in the current case, it highlighted differing judicial interpretations regarding compensation schemes.

These precedents collectively underscore the Court's commitment to a broad and inclusive interpretation of protected statuses under Article 14, ensuring that discrimination claims are thoroughly examined.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's analysis followed a structured approach:

  1. Ambit of Article 14: Determined that the criminal injuries compensation scheme falls within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol 1, as it constitutes a welfare benefit to which individuals have an enforceable right under domestic law.
  2. Protected Status: Identified JT's living status (being a family member at the time of abuse) as a protected "other status" under Article 14, even though it is not explicitly listed.
  3. Discrimination Analysis: Assessed whether the 'same roof' rule constitutes unlawful discrimination by evaluating if the differential treatment is based on a protected status and lacks objective justification.
  4. Justification Test: Applied the proportionality test, considering whether the state's aim to prevent offenders from benefiting from awards was sufficiently justified and proportionate to the means employed.

The Court concluded that the 'same roof' rule lacked a rational connection to its purported aim, as alternative measures already existed to prevent offenders from benefiting. Moreover, the rule disproportionately affected victims who had no control over their living arrangements, rendering it manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the criminal injuries compensation scheme and similar welfare systems:

  • Legal Precedent: Sets a clear precedent that exclusionary rules based on familial status at the time of crime must be scrutinized for discrimination under Article 14.
  • Compensation Schemes: Mandates the reevaluation of eligibility criteria to ensure non-discriminatory practices, especially for victims of serious crimes involving family members.
  • Human Rights Compliance: Reinforces the necessity for governmental policies to align with human rights obligations, particularly regarding equality and non-discrimination.
  • Judicial Oversight: Empowers courts to challenge and invalidate discriminatory administrative rules, promoting fairness and justice for victims.

Future cases involving compensation and welfare benefits will likely reference this judgment to advocate for more equitable treatment of applicants.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. It mandates that these rights must be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, religion, or other statuses, including less explicitly mentioned ones.

The 'Same Roof' Rule

The 'same roof' rule is a stipulation within the UK's criminal injuries compensation scheme that denies compensation to victims of violent crimes if they were living with the assailant as family members at the time the crime occurred, particularly for incidents before October 1, 1979.

Proportionality Test

A legal standard used to assess whether the means used by a state to achieve a legitimate aim are appropriate and not overly burdensome. It involves checking if there is a reasonable relationship between the aims pursued and the methods employed.

Conclusion

The JT v. First-Tier Tribunal judgment marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of compensation law and human rights in the UK. By declaring the 'same roof' rule incompatible with Article 14 of the ECHR, the Court underscored the imperative that compensation schemes must not discriminate against victims based on their familial living arrangements during the time of the crime. This decision not only broadens the understanding of protected statuses under Article 14 but also reinforces the need for legislative and administrative bodies to craft policies that uphold equality and justice for all victims, irrespective of their personal circumstances at the time of victimization.

Moving forward, this judgment serves as a crucial reference point for ensuring that compensation mechanisms are both fair and aligned with fundamental human rights principles. It emphasizes that policies must be continually assessed and reformed to eliminate arbitrary and discriminatory barriers, thereby fostering a more equitable support system for all victims of violent crimes.

Case Details

Year: 2018
Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Judge(s)

LADY JUSTICE SHARP DBESIR TERENCE ETHERTON MRLORD JUSTICE LEGGATT

Attorney(S)

Fenella Morris QC and Nicola Kohn (instructed by Watson Woodhouse Solicitors) for the AppellantBen Collins QC and Robert Moretto (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Interested Party

Comments