Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in the landmark case of A and B v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority & Anor ([2021] UKSC 27), addressed a significant issue concerning the application of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) to victims of human trafficking who possess unspent criminal convictions. The appellants, twin brothers A and B, both Lithuanian nationals and victims of human trafficking, were excluded from receiving compensation under the CICS due to their prior criminal convictions. They contended that this exclusion constituted unjustifiable discrimination under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed the exclusionary rule, maintaining that it did not breach the ECHR's non-discrimination provisions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the exclusionary rule in the CICS. The Court determined that excluding victims of human trafficking with unspent custodial or community convictions from compensation does not constitute unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR when read alongside Article 4. The ruling emphasized that the exclusionary measures are justified based on legitimate aims, such as directing limited resources to those deemed blameless and not burdening society with the costs associated with offenders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents, including:

• Stuart v United Kingdom: Addressed the scope of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR concerning compensation for victims.
• Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia: Recognized human trafficking within the ambit of Article 4 ECHR and outlined positive obligations on states.
• Clift v United Kingdom: Expanded the understanding of 'status' under Article 14 ECHR.
• Chowdury v Greece: Reinforced the positive obligations of states in preventing and protecting victims of trafficking.

These cases collectively informed the Court's approach to interpreting non-discrimination within compensation schemes and the extent of positive obligations under the ECHR.

Legal Reasoning

The Court undertook a detailed examination of whether the exclusionary rule in the CICS amounted to discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 4. The primary considerations included:

• Ampit of Article 14: Determining whether the compensation scheme fell within the scope of substantive rights protected by the ECHR.
• Status of the Appellants: Establishing whether being a victim of trafficking with an unspent conviction constituted a distinct status warranting protection against discrimination.
• Difference in Treatment: Assessing whether the exclusionary rule created unjustifiable differences in treatment between similar groups.
• Justification: Evaluating whether the exclusionary measures were proportionate and served legitimate aims.

The Court concluded that the exclusionary rule was justified, as it aligned with the legitimate aim of directing limited compensation resources to those considered blameless. The rules were found to be proportionate, rationally connected to their objectives, and carried out in a manner that respected the principles of non-discrimination.

Impact

This decision has profound implications for future cases involving compensation schemes and non-discrimination claims under the ECHR. It reinforces the principle that exclusionary rules in social welfare compensations can be upheld if they are justified, proportionate, and serve legitimate governmental aims. Additionally, it clarifies the boundaries of 'status' under Article 14, especially concerning individuals with prior convictions, thereby influencing how future compensation schemes might structure eligibility criteria.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14 ECHR

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. It ensures that individuals are not treated differently based on specific grounds such as sex, race, or other statuses.

Article 4 ECHR

Article 4 protects individuals from slavery and forced labor. In the context of this case, it relates to the protection of victims of human trafficking and their rights.

Exclusionary Rule in CICS

The CICS inclusion criteria exclude individuals with unspent criminal convictions resulting in custodial or community sentences from receiving compensation. This rule aims to ensure that compensation is directed toward victims deemed blameless and free from societal burdens associated with prior offenses.

Status under Article 14

'Status' refers to identifiable characteristics that distinguish individuals or groups, which can include conditions like being a victim of trafficking or having an unspent conviction. Determining 'status' is crucial in assessing non-discrimination claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in A and B v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority & Anor solidifies the legality of exclusionary measures within compensation schemes like the CICS, provided they meet the criteria of legitimacy and proportionality under the ECHR. By affirming that such exclusions do not constitute unjustified discrimination, the Court delineates the boundaries within which social welfare policies operate, balancing the allocation of limited resources with the imperative to uphold human rights standards. This judgment not only provides clarity on the application of Articles 14 and 4 in compensation contexts but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be adjudicated in the future.