Humphreys (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 18 On appeal from the Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 56 – read judgment
A person’s entitlement to Child Tax Credit (CTC) is a “possession” for the purposes of article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
It has been accepted for some time that the rule discriminates indirectly against fathers, because experience shows that they are far more likely than mothers to be looking after the child for the smaller number of days in the week. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether this discrimination is justified or whether the refusal of CTC to a father who looks after his children for three days a week is incompatible with his Convention rights. The Court ruled that in the light of the policy behind CTC, the reduction of child poverty, the discrimination was justified.
The following report is based on the Supreme Court’s press summary (references to paragraphs in the judgment in square brackets):
Background
CTC is a benefit payable in respect of each child irrespective of whether the applicant is employed. Th amount payable depends on the income of the applicant.
Under the Child Tax Credit Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2007), CTC in respect of each child is payable to only one person, even where the care of the child is shared between two or more persons. Entitlement to CTC depends on who is deemed responsible for the child. Regulation 3(1) creates a set of rules for determining this. Rule 1 provides that where the child lives with one person, that person is treated as responsible. Rule 2 provides that where a child lives with two or more persons in different households, the person having “main responsibility” for the child is treated as being responsible. Continue Reading »
De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) – 
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is to deliver its latest, hotly anticipated, decision on prisoner votes next Tuesday 22 May. The case is Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3). The Court’s press release is 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Peace campaigner evicted from Parliament Square using new law – Marina Wheeler
May 17, 2012 by 1 Crown Office Row
On 27 April 2012, Maria Gallastegui, a peace campaigner and resident of the East pavement of Parliament Square since 2006, lost her legal battle to continue her 24 hour, tented vigil in protest against the folly of war and in particular the UK’s involvement in armed conflict.
The Court’s main task was to construe a new law enacted to bolster the legal armoury available to control long-term protests in the Square. Section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – which came into force on 19 December 2011 – gives a local authority the power to stop “prescribed activities” such as using tents (and other structures) to sleep. They are also empowered to seize items used for these prescribed purposes ie the tents.
Continue Reading »
Share:
Like this:
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 11 | Freedom of Association, Case comments, Housing, Politics / Public Order | Tagged Maria Gallastegui, Parliament square, Protest, protest rights | 2 Comments »