RJM, R (On The Application of) v Secretary of State For Work and Pensions, United Kingdom House of Lords, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

RJM, R (On The Application of) v. Secretary of State For Work and Pensions

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is a disabled individual suffering from mental-health problems who qualified for income support, including a disability premium. In August 2004 the Department for Work and Pensions ceased paying the premium after classifying the Appellant as being “without accommodation” (a “rough sleeper”) under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. The Appellant challenged that exclusion as discriminatory under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) read with Article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”). The lower tribunals rejected the claim. The Court of Appeal found that a difference in treatment existed but concluded that it was justified. The Appellant appealed to the House of Lords, which, per multiple concurring opinions, dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the withdrawal of the disability premium falls within the “ambit” of A1P1 so as to engage Article 14 even though the benefit is non-contributory.
Whether homelessness (“being without accommodation”) constitutes an “other status” or personal characteristic for the purposes of Article 14.
Whether the differential treatment of disabled rough sleepers is objectively and reasonably justified, satisfying the proportionality test under Article 14.
Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to depart from its own earlier precedent in light of subsequent authority from the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The disability premium is a pecuniary right protected by A1P1, following Stec v United Kingdom.
Homelessness is a personal characteristic falling within “other status” under Article 14.
The exclusion is arbitrary and bears no rational connection to the purpose of a disability premium; rough sleepers may incur extra costs (e.g., clothing, laundry, buying prepared food).
Resource implications are negligible because the official number of rough sleepers is very low.
The original policy was carried over without fresh consideration and cannot now be justified post hoc.

Defendant's Arguments

Non-contributory benefits are not “possessions” for A1P1 purposes; therefore Article 14 is not engaged.
Homelessness is not a protected “status.”
Even if Article 14 applies, the differential treatment pursues legitimate aims:
- (a) The disability premium is designed to meet additional household costs that rough sleepers do not incur; and
- (b) Withholding the premium discourages entrenchment in street homelessness and allows resources to be channelled into targeted services that help rough sleepers into accommodation.
Given the high prevalence of substance misuse among rough sleepers, additional cash might be harmful rather than beneficial.
Social-welfare design falls within the State’s broad margin of appreciation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 396	Description of conditions amounting to being “without accommodation.”	Illustrates the harsh realities of sleeping rough.
Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1976) 1 EHRR 711	Article 14 requires discrimination to be based on a “personal characteristic.”	Cited in defining “other status.”
A L (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42	Scope of Article 14 and comparator analysis.	Relied on for principles governing Article 14 scrutiny.
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37	Intensity of review where discrimination concerns non-suspect categories.	Used to support a broad margin of appreciation.
Kopecky v Slovakia (2005) 41 EHRR 43	Requirement of an enforceable proprietary right under A1P1.	Contrasted with Stec in determining “possessions.”
von Maltzan v Germany (2006) 42 EHRR SE92	Need for an established claim to property to invoke A1P1.	Distinguished because it did not concern social-security benefits.
Gaygusuz v Austria (1997) 23 EHRR 364	Contributory benefits can be “possessions” under A1P1.	Forms part of the doctrinal path leading to Stec.
Stec v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR SE295; (2006) 43 EHRR 47	Non-contributory benefits fall within A1P1 if the claimant would be entitled but for the impugned condition.	Foundation for holding that the disability premium is a “possession.”
Gratzinger v Czech Republic (2002) 35 EHRR CD202; Polacek v Czech Republic (2002); Maurice v France (2006) 42 EHRR 855	Earlier authorities requiring an enforceable right to invoke A1P1.	Reviewed but not followed after Stec.
Engel v The Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647	Military status as “other status.”	Analogous support for treating homelessness as a status.
Johnston v Ireland (1986) 9 EHRR 203	Residence/domicile as “other status.”	Part of the illustrative list of accepted statuses.
Sidabras v Lithuania (2004) 42 EHRR 104	Past employment (KGB) as “other status.”	Further supports a broad reading of status.
Chassagnou v France (1999) 29 EHRR 615	Property-related distinctions can attract Article 14.	Used illustratively to analogise with homelessness.
Gerger v Turkey (1999)	Distinction based on type of offence is not status-based.	Cited to explain the character-based approach.
Stubbings v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 213	Holistic approach to Article 14 analysis by ECtHR.	Mentioned in discussing analytical method.
Salesi v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 187	Article 6 applies to non-contributory benefits.	Supports coherence between Article 6 and A1P1 interpretations.
Associazione Nazionale Reduci … v Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE11	Limits to Stec; one-off war payments not analogous.	Distinguished; did not undermine Stec.
Animal Defenders International v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15	Domestic courts’ duty to “take into account” ECtHR case-law.	Relied on when assessing the weight of Stec.
R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2004] UKHL 39; R (Clift) [2006] UKHL 54; R (Countryside Alliance) [2007] UKHL 52	House of Lords approach to the “status” requirement in Article 14.	Cited as domestic precedent on personal characteristics.
Kafkaris v Cyprus (2008)	Definition of discrimination in Article 14.	Quoted when explaining “analogous positions.”
R (Wilson) v First County Trust (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40	Time-specific assessment of justification.	Applied in evaluating policy justification evidence.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718	Binding force of Court of Appeal precedent.	Forms backdrop to discussion on precedent and ECtHR decisions.
Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264	Re-affirmation of Young rules.	Cited in precedent analysis.
Campbell v South Northamptonshire DC [2004] EWCA Civ 409	Earlier Court of Appeal view that non-contributory benefits fall outside A1P1.	Distinguished and departed from after Stec.
Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] UKHL 10	Doctrine of precedent where ECtHR and House of Lords decisions conflict.	Guided analysis of when Court of Appeal may depart from precedent.
D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1151	Example of Court of Appeal departing from House of Lords authority post-HRA.	Discussed as “partial exception” in precedent debate.
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633	Underlying authority questioned in D v East Berkshire.	Provides historical context to precedent flexibility.
Desnousse v Newham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 547	Generous approach to “per incuriam.”	Cited when discussing Court of Appeal’s freedom to depart from its own cases.
Actavis UK Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 444	Analogy with European Patent Office decisions and precedent.	Mentioned when outlining the proposed rule for ECtHR inconsistency.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House accepted that Stec decisively established that non-contributory welfare benefits may constitute “possessions”; therefore the Appellant’s entitlement, but for the homelessness exclusion, lay within the ambit of A1P1. Adopting a “generous” interpretation of “other status,” the Law Lords concluded that homelessness is a personal characteristic because it describes what a person is, not merely what a person does, and aligns with prior Strasbourg acceptance of attributes such as military rank, domicile, or past employment.

Turning to justification, the Court emphasised the broad margin of appreciation given to States in socio-economic policy, especially where the ground of discrimination is not one of the core suspect categories. The Defendant’s two-pronged rationale—(1) disabled rough sleepers incur fewer of the household-related costs that the premium is designed to meet, and (2) allocating additional cash risked entrenching harmful behaviours and detracted from targeted housing initiatives—was accepted as pursuing legitimate aims. The reduced number of potential beneficiaries and minimal fiscal impact did not, in the Court’s view, render the measure disproportionate.

On precedent, the Court endorsed the Court of Appeal’s ability to depart from its earlier decision in Campbell once the ECtHR had clearly changed the legal landscape in Stec, while emphasising that only the highest domestic court may reconsider its own earlier judgments where they conflict with subsequent Strasbourg authority.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

The House of Lords held that, although the exclusion of homeless disabled claimants from the disability premium constitutes differential treatment under Article 14, the discrimination is objectively and reasonably justified. The ruling clarifies that: (i) non-contributory social-security benefits can fall within A1P1; (ii) homelessness may amount to an “other status”; and (iii) wide deference is accorded to the executive in socio-economic policy. The decision leaves the regulatory scheme intact and sets no new equality precedent requiring legislative change, but it affirms the circumstances in which domestic courts may depart from their own prior authority in light of later ECtHR jurisprudence.