[2021] UKSC 27
the UK Supreme Court considered the case of two Lithuanian brothers who were trafficked to the UK and subjected to labour exploitation and abuse. Their claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was refused because they had previous unspent convictions from Lithuania. They claimed that Paragraph 26 and Annex D unjustifiably discriminated against them, in breach of article 14 taken with article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
The UK Supreme Court disagreed that there was discrimination. The aim of the legislation underpinning the CICA was legitimate. The Scheme was a taxpayer-funded expression of public sympathy and it was reasonable that there should be strict criteria around who was deemed ‘blameless’ for the purpose of determining who should receive a share of its limited funds. Moreover, the exclusionary rules were entirely proportionate. Courts should be slow to criticise legislation in the area of social benefits which depended necessarily on lines drawn broadly between situations which could be distinguished relatively easily and objectively. The rules adopted in Annex D were nuanced rules reflecting in various ways both the seriousness and the age of a claimant’s previous conviction.
To read the full judgment on BAILLII go to https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/27.html