2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants challenged the 'benefit cap' introduced under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, claiming it violated their human rights, especially under Articles 8, 14, and A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights by disproportionately affecting women and family life. They also argued the cap was irrational. The government contended the cap aimed to incentivize work and reduce long-term benefit dependency. The Divisional Court had validated these arguments, and the current appeal sought to overturn that decision. The court held that the benefit cap was lawful, not discriminatory or irrational, and did not breach the cited human rights conventions.
Judgment
Master of the Rolls: This is the judgment of the court to which each member has contributed.
This appeal relates to what is generally known as the “benefit cap” imposed by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (“the Act”) and the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”) which were made thereunder. In broad terms the appellants say that the 2012 Regulations have been made in breach of articles 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) and 8 read with article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) because their rights as women not to be subjected to discrimination and their rights to family life have been infringed. The Secretary of State contends that the aim of the benefit cap is primarily to bring about a change in culture by incentivising people to work, thereby reducing what the Government believes is the debilitating effect of long term dependency on benefits. In addition, the Government believes that the cap strikes a fairer balance between the interests of taxpaying working households and those on benefits. Any interference with family life and any discriminatory impact of the benefit cap on women generally (and female victims of domestic violence who flee from their homes in particular) is therefore said to be justified and lawful. The Divisional Court upheld the arguments of the Secretary of State. The claimants now appeal. We adopt, with gratitude, the outline account of the legislation and the facts from the Divisional Court’s judgment.
The Legislation
The Act received Royal Assent on 8 March 2012. The cap is one of the major reforms which it introduces and is so called because it sets a cap to the amount of welfare benefits a recipient may receive. Section 96 of the Act introduces the concept of a “relevant amount” of prescribed welfare benefits: this constitutes the cap. Where the total entitlement to such benefits of a single person or a couple exceeds the relevant amount, their entitlement is reduced by the amount of the excess (section 96(2)).
The broad principles for determining the “relevant amount” are laid down in the primary legislation (section 96(6) to (8)). However, the precise manner of its calculation and the amount actually determined are to be specified in regulations (sections 96(4) and (5)). These regulations may make provision as to the benefits from which a reduction is to be made and may provide for exceptions to the application of the cap (section 96(4)(b) and (c)).
Secti