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 captured and became a prisoner of war of the Japanese. He accepted that he did not meet the criteria in the statement, but submitted that the criteria in that policy were racially discriminatory.
Held: The relevant question was what was the ground upon which the distinction was made in the scheme. The judge was right to conclude that the distinction made in the present case was ‘on the grounds of’ nationality and not race. The claim failed.
Judges:
Ward LJ, Latham LJ, Sir Peter Gibson
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1023
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Association of British Civilian Internees – Far Eastern Region (ABCIFER) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 3-Apr-2003
The association sought a judicial review of a decision not to pay compensation in respect of their or their parents or grandparents’ internment by the Japanese in the Second World War. Payment was not made because those interned were not born in . .
Cited – Elias, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another Admn 7-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Gurung, Pun and Thapa v Ministry of Defence QBD 27-Nov-2002
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission HL 1989
At the council’s independent, single-sex grammar schools there were more places available for boys than girls. Consequently the council were obliged to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys in the grammar school entrance examination.
Cited – Hampson v Department of Education and Science HL 7-Jun-1990
A teacher of Hong Kong national origin was refused qualified teacher status in this country because the Secretary of State had not exercised a power conferred on him by the relevant regulations to treat her Hong Kong qualifications as equivalent to . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Appeal from – Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 11-Aug-2006
Claim for payment under ex gratia compensation scheme for service members imprisoned during second world war. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Discrimination, Administrative
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.251576
