The applicants were British Nepalese soldiers who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. They challenged the decision of the respondent in November 2000 to exclude them from a compensation scheme, but to allow other British nationals from India who had also been imprisoned.
Held: The decision to exclude them was irrational. It offended the common law principle of equality before the law, and was discriminatory under the Convention. It was permissible for the government not to seek compensation on behalf of nationals of other states which had themselves reached a settlement with Japan, but that did not apply to these claimants. Standards which may have applied in 1955 need not be applied now. The ABCIFER case was to de distinguished because that case did not involve any element of race discrimination as did this.
McCombe J
Times 28-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – ABCIFER v Secretary of State for Defence 2002
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 1-May-2007
In 2000, the defendant introduced a policy to make compensation payments for those British services personnel who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan had served in the Indian Army, was . .
Cited – Dost Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 1-May-2007
The applicant was a Pakistani national who had been in the Indian army during the secind world war, and had been imprisoned by the Japanese. The defendant had set up a system of ex gratia payments to five classes of beneficiary, but the claimant . .
See Also – Limbu and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 30-Sep-2008
The applicants who were retired Gurkha soldiers challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a cut off of disallowing those who had retired from the armed forces before 1997.
Held: The rules applied to the Ghurkas were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Human Rights, Discrimination, Immigration
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.178477