In R (Adalberto Jesus de Almeida) v. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, the English High Court upheld a claim for judicial review on the basis that a refusal to provide accommodation and support to an individual was incompatible with the claimant’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a challenge by a Portuguese man who was terminally ill with AIDS, to a local authority’s refusal to provide him with housing and support. The claimant was too ill to work and pay rent so he moved into a hostel and applied for assistance from the local authority. The authority rejected his claim on the basis that he was independent in all aspects of daily living.
The claimant argued that the refusal was in the first place irrational as he was not in fact able to attend to his daily living needs. Secondly, he argued that the refusal violated his rights under Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR. In upholding his claim for judicial review, the High Court held that the local authority had acted irrationally as the claimant was clearly in need of care and attention. The authority had applied too high a threshold. The court further found that Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR had been violated and it would constitute ‘inhuman treatment’ to send him to an undignified and distressing end in Portugal. It held that the claimant’s case was exceptional as he was at the end of his life.
Click here to read an article on the case by Garden Court Chambers blog.
Also in the UK, the Court of Appeal has held to be discriminatory the ‘size criteria’ which establishes the amount of bedrooms a claimant can qualify for when applying for housing allowance for a rental in the private sector. This case – Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Anor – involved two appellants who required the assistance of overnight carers due to their disability, and another appellant whose two children were disabled and therefore unable to share a bedroom. The discrimination arose from the fact that the ‘size criteria’ did not make any allowance for the essential housing needs of severely disabled people, and that the Secretary of State had failed to establish any objective and reasonable justification for the discriminatory effect of the statutory criteria.
The Garden Court Chambers Blog noted that this is only the third case in which it has been held that a UK welfare benefit rule breached Article 14 of the ECHR (prohibition on discrimination), and is therefore a huge progression in the area of application of human rights arguments to the law of welfare benefits.
Click here to read an article on the case by Garden Court Chambers blog.