The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his human rights. It was accepted that he was properly dealt with under the rules. For Art 14, a difference is discriminatory if it ‘has no objective and reasonable justification’, that is, it pursues no ‘legitimate aim’ or if there is no ‘reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and the aim to be realised’. The court refused the declaration of incompatibility requested, but ordered that the committal to custody had been wrong.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Admin 802
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 98, European Convention on Human Rights art 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inze v Austria ECHR 28-Oct-1987
Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Children, Discrimination
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.166635
