Blake J endorsed a six step approach which a public authority will need to address in relation to its duty to make adjustments to avoid indirectly discriminating: ‘1. Did the [public authority] have a practice policy or procedure?
2. Did that practice policy or procedure make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to receive any benefit that is, or may be, conferred by the [public authority]?
3. If so, is it under a duty to take such steps as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for it to change that practice policy and procedure so it no longer has that effect?
4. Has the [public authority] failed to comply with its duty to take such steps?
5. If so, is the effect of that failure such as to make it unreasonably difficult for [the disabled person] to access such benefit?
6. If so, can the [public authority] show that its failure to comply is justified.?’
Blake J
[2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin), [2010] RTR 5
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 49A
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gill, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 26-Feb-2010
Failure to provide programme discriminated
The claimant prisoner who had a learning disability said that he had been unable to complete the offending behaviour programmes because of his disability, that he had been kept in prison for much longer than he should have been as a consequence, and . .
Cited – The Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.375607