The court was asked as to the extent to which the State should retain personal information about citizens, and whether its policies or practices for doing so comply with the human rights of those citizens. It arose in the instant case in a heightened form because the information relates to the sensitive personal data of those who have had, or are in the process of having, gender reassignment. The result was that though having a gender recognition certificate, the claimant’s gender re-assignment history was available to DWP staff she dealt with.
Held: The policies in place were not sufficiently clear, precise and accessible to be ‘in accordance with the law’ for the purpose of justifying them under article 8(2) and granted a declaration to that effect. However, they pursued the legitimate aims of enabling accurate calculations of state pension entitlement and of reducing opportunities for identity theft and benefit fraud and were a proportionate means of doing so. It was more doubtful whether the SCR policy even engaged article 8(2), as it was designed to protect privacy, rather than to interfere with it, although it did tend to have the opposite effect of drawing attention to transgender customers; but he held that it was in any event justified by the need to protect DWP staff. Simon J rejected the claim based on direct discrimination, because the appellant was not treated less favourably than other customers because of her gender reassignment. He was prepared to assume that the policies were indirectly discriminatory, in that they put transgender customers at a particular disadvantage when compared with others, but they were justified under the 2010 Act for the same reasons that they were justified under the Convention.
Judges:
Simon J
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 2403 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 9-Feb-2016
The Court was asked whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance, the State has unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private.
Held: The appeal . .
At First Instance – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 1-Nov-2017
This case is about how the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP), in administering our complex welfare benefits system, treats people with a reassigned gender, and specifically whether certain policies conflict (1) with the Gender Recognition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Administrative, Discrimination
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.551941