Brexit Bedroom Tax Judicial Reviews That Went Against The Government Courts

Brexit

In 2016, the high court ruled that parliament had to give its consent before the government could trigger Article 50 and officially start Brexit, prompting criticism from ministers and the Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline. The decision was upheld by the high court, which in 2019 would rule that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament during the Brexit crisis was illegal, again angering the government.

Court fees

In 2017, the high court ruled that employment tribunal fees of up to £1,200 were inconsistent with access to justice, forcing the Ministry of Justice to scrap the fees and giving those who had already paid them the right to a refund. In the judicial review brought by trade union Unison, judges also found the pay was contrary to the Equality Act 2010 as it disproportionately affected women.

Conditional workboys

Three high court judges have forced the Parole Board to review its controversial decision to release serial sex offender John Warboys from prison following a case brought by two anonymous victims. In their 2018 decision, judges said the board’s panel should have considered the full circumstances of Worboy’s offending. He was jailed indefinitely in 2009 with a minimum sentence of eight years after pleading guilty to 19 offences, but police believe he committed crimes against 105 women between 2002 and 2008, when he was arrested. This was a rare occasion when the government supported a judicial review decision, with Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwicke forced to resign as a result of the decision after the then justice secretary, David Gauke, said his position was “untenable ». . A review by the council concluded that Worboy should remain in prison.

Bedroom tax

Government attempts to impose the bedroom tax on partners of severely disabled people, which would have reduced housing benefit by 14% for having a “spare” room, were ruled unlawful by the high court in 2019. Judges said its implementation The reduction to a man referred to only as RR was a breach of his right to housing under the Human Rights Act. They said RR’s partner had a severe disability so it was “acceptable” that the couple needed an extra bedroom for their medical equipment. The result was to restore full housing allowance to RR, and at least 155 other disabled partners.

Facial recognition technology

The Court of Appeal ruled in 2020 that South Wales Police’s use of facial recognition technology breached privacy rights and breached the Equality Act. Ed Bridges, a civil liberties campaigner, brought the case, arguing that the arrest of thousands of people by the Welsh force was indiscriminate and disproportionate. Allowing his appeal, the court found that Bridges’ right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached because there was “too wide a discretion” for police officers to implement the technology. Judges also concluded that the force breached its public sector equality duty by failing to properly investigate whether its facial recognition algorithms were race or gender biased.

PPE “VIP lane”

In January, the government’s operation of a “VIP lane” for suppliers of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus pandemic was found to be unlawful by a high court judge, amid allegations of charity. Ms Justice O’Farrell sided with the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor, who together challenged the legality of how billions of pounds worth of contracts were awarded through the high priority lane. But despite the health and social care secretary’s direct award of contracts to supply PPE and medical devices to PestFix and Ayand was unlawful preferential treatment, the judge said it was “highly likely” they would have been awarded even if the appropriate procedures had been followed.

title: “Brexit Bedroom Tax Judicial Reviews That Went Against The Government Courts " ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-27” author: “Charles Romanowski”

Brexit

In 2016, the high court ruled that parliament had to give its consent before the government could trigger Article 50 and officially start Brexit, prompting criticism from ministers and the Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline. The decision was upheld by the high court, which in 2019 would rule that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament during the Brexit crisis was illegal, again angering the government.

Court fees

In 2017, the high court ruled that employment tribunal fees of up to £1,200 were inconsistent with access to justice, forcing the Ministry of Justice to scrap the fees and giving those who had already paid them the right to a refund. In the judicial review brought by trade union Unison, judges also found the pay was contrary to the Equality Act 2010 as it disproportionately affected women.

Conditional workboys

Three high court judges have forced the Parole Board to review its controversial decision to release serial sex offender John Warboys from prison following a case brought by two anonymous victims. In their 2018 decision, judges said the board’s panel should have considered the full circumstances of Worboy’s offending. He was jailed indefinitely in 2009 with a minimum sentence of eight years after pleading guilty to 19 offences, but police believe he committed crimes against 105 women between 2002 and 2008, when he was arrested. This was a rare occasion when the government supported a judicial review decision, with Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwicke forced to resign as a result of the decision after the then justice secretary, David Gauke, said his position was “untenable ». . A review by the council concluded that Worboy should remain in prison.

Bedroom tax

Government attempts to impose the bedroom tax on partners of severely disabled people, which would have reduced housing benefit by 14% for having a “spare” room, were ruled unlawful by the high court in 2019. Judges said its implementation The reduction to a man referred to only as RR was a breach of his right to housing under the Human Rights Act. They said RR’s partner had a severe disability so it was “acceptable” that the couple needed an extra bedroom for their medical equipment. The result was to restore full housing allowance to RR, and at least 155 other disabled partners.

Facial recognition technology

The Court of Appeal ruled in 2020 that South Wales Police’s use of facial recognition technology breached privacy rights and breached the Equality Act. Ed Bridges, a civil liberties campaigner, brought the case, arguing that the arrest of thousands of people by the Welsh force was indiscriminate and disproportionate. Allowing his appeal, the court found that Bridges’ right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached because there was “too wide a discretion” for police officers to implement the technology. Judges also concluded that the force breached its public sector equality duty by failing to properly investigate whether its facial recognition algorithms were race or gender biased.

PPE “VIP lane”

In January, the government’s operation of a “VIP lane” for suppliers of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus pandemic was found to be unlawful by a high court judge, amid allegations of charity. Ms Justice O’Farrell sided with the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor, who together challenged the legality of how billions of pounds worth of contracts were awarded through the high priority lane. But despite the health and social care secretary’s direct award of contracts to supply PPE and medical devices to PestFix and Ayand was unlawful preferential treatment, the judge said it was “highly likely” they would have been awarded even if the appropriate procedures had been followed.