Introduction

The case of Peiris, R (On the Application Of) v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors ([2023] EWCA Civ 1527) addresses the refusal of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (the Authority) to grant a bereavement payment to Mr. Peiris, a Sri Lankan national who was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. This refusal followed the tragic murder of his son, Thavisha Peiris, in Sheffield in October 2013. The primary legal contention revolves around whether the refusal constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14, read with Article 1 of the First Protocol, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Peiris' appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal, which had upheld the First-tier Tribunal's dismissal of his claim. The courts reaffirmed that the eligibility criteria under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012—specifically requiring applicants to be ordinarily resident in the UK or possess British nationality, among other conditions—are objectively justified. The judgment underscored the government's legitimate aim to ensure the sustainability of the compensation scheme by controlling public expenditure, thereby validating the differential treatment based on residency and nationality.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases to support its reasoning:

• Stec v UK (2006): Emphasized the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states in social and economic policies.
• R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009]: Highlighted that not all policy decisions require strict judicial scrutiny, especially in areas of resource allocation.
• R (A and another) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2021]: Affirmed that social welfare measures are subject to considerable deference from courts.
• Gaygusuz v Austria (1996), Koua Poirrez v France (2005), and Ponomaryov v Bulgaria (2014): Addressed the necessity of weighty reasons to justify differential treatment based solely on nationality.

These precedents collectively establish a framework wherein the courts defer to the legislature's policy decisions in managing social welfare schemes, provided there is a reasonable and proportionate justification for such policies.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal applied the following legal principles:

• Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol: Assesses whether discrimination exists in the enjoyment of a Convention right—in this case, the right to compensation following a criminal injury.
• Materially Analogous Position: Evaluates whether Mr. Peiris is in a comparable situation to other applicants who meet the eligibility criteria.
• Objective Justification: Determines whether the differential treatment (based on residency and nationality) serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate to that aim.

The court concluded that the eligibility criteria serve the legitimate aim of ensuring the sustainability of the compensation scheme—a policy decision within the margin of appreciation afforded to the state. The requirement for applicants to be ordinarily resident or British nationals was deemed proportionate, balancing the need for social solidarity with financial sustainability.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the authority of the legislature in setting eligibility criteria for social welfare schemes, particularly concerning residency and nationality. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding such policies unless they are manifestly unjustifiable. Future cases involving similar eligibility disputes will likely follow this precedent, affording governments considerable discretion in designing compensation frameworks that manage public expenditure while addressing victims' needs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights based on specific grounds such as race, nationality, and residence. It requires that any differential treatment be justified as fair and reasonable.

Article 1 of the First Protocol

This article protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and, by extension, rights related to compensation for injuries or loss. In this case, it relates to the right to compensation under the criminal injuries scheme.

Margin of Appreciation

The margin of appreciation is a principle that allows states some leeway in how they implement Convention rights, recognizing that domestic authorities are often better placed to make decisions within their particular societal context.

Objective Justification

This legal test examines whether the reasons for differential treatment are legitimate and whether the means of achieving these aims are proportionate and reasonable.

Conclusion

The Peiris v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors judgment stands as a significant affirmation of the government's authority to define eligibility criteria for social welfare schemes based on residency and nationality. By upholding the scheme's requirements as objectively justified, the courts reinforced the principle that social and economic policies, especially those involving resource allocation, fall within the legislature's purview. This decision has far-reaching implications for individuals seeking compensation under similar schemes and underscores the importance of satisfying residency and nationality conditions to access such benefits.