R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Last updated

R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameR (on the application of Tigere) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Respondent)
Argued24–25 June 2015
Decided29 July 2015
Neutral citation [2015] UKSC 57
Case history
Prior history [2014] EWCA Civ 1216; [2014] EWHC 2452 (Admin)
Holding
Appeal allowed, the settlement criterion is a breach of Article 14, ECHR when read with Article 2, Protocol 1.
Case opinions
MajorityLady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes
DissentLord Sumption, Lord Reed
Area of law
Right to education; Student loans; Immigration law

R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning student loans in the United Kingdom.

Contents

Facts

Beaurish Tigere arrived in the UK from Zambia at the age of six. She came as a dependent of her father who had a student visa. The father left in 2003 but Tigere remained with her mother who over-stayed. The UK Border Agency became aware of this situation in 2010 and granted them temporary permission to remain which became discretionary leave to remain in 2012. Tigere would have been entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain in 2018 but until that time she was unable to apply for a student loan despite achieving three A-Levels and a place at Northumbria University to study International Business Management.[ citation needed ]

The case was brought on behalf of Tigere by Public Interest Lawyers who argued that the policy was an infringement of Tigere's right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provision reads "[n]o person shall be denied the right to education" and the negative formulation does mean that there is no automatic entitlement to public support. [1] However Tigere argued that this ought to be read in line with Article 14 of the Convention that states her rights "shall be secured without discrimination on any ground" (in this case her immigration status). [2]

Judgment

High Court

The High Court found in favour of Tigere and held that the blanket ban on her eligibility for a student loan based on her immigration status was a disproportionate interference on her right to education and also constituted discrimination under Article 14. [3]

Court of Appeal

The Secretary of State appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal which held that the case concerned an area of "national strategic policy for the distribution of scarce resources in a field of great social importance" and therefore a wide margin of appreciation should be afforded to government policy. With this in mind the appeal was allowed. [4]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed Ms. Tigere's appeal by a majority of three to two. Lady Hale (with whom Lord Kerr agreed) gave the leading judgment and concluded:

41. Any short-term savings to the public purse by denying these students finance, by way of loans, not grants, are just that, as most of them will eventually qualify for loans, and in the meantime the benefit their enhanced qualifications will bring to the exchequer and the economy have been lost.

Lord Hughes offered a concurring judgment but slightly disagreed with Lady Hale by suggesting that any future rules drawn up by the Secretary of State would not necessarily have to include an 'exceptional case' discretion. In particular he noted:

68. Since it is for the Secretary of State to devise a rule which does not thus infringe, it is of course open to him to adopt one which incorporates an elastic “exceptional case” discretion. But for my part I am wholly satisfied that if he should elect not to include such a discretion, that decision could not result in any infringement of Convention rights.

Ms. Tigere's four A-Levels earned her a place at Northumbria University. University of Northumbria (geograph 2056156).jpg
Ms. Tigere's four A-Levels earned her a place at Northumbria University.

The joint minority judgment handed down by Lords Reed and Sumption argued that the appropriate test is whether the scheme is 'manifestly without foundation' and concluded that:

100. In a case where a range of rational and proportionate policy options is open to the decision-maker, the decision which provides the best allocation of scarce resources is a question of social and economic evaluation. These are matters of political and administrative judgment, which the law leaves to those who are answerable to Parliament. They are not questions for a court of law. It is enough to justify the Secretary of State’s choice in this case that discrimination on the basis of residence and settlement are not “manifestly without foundation”.

Impact

Solicitor Paul Heron, of Public Interest Lawyers, said: [5]

“My client is a talented and brave individual and is a credit to the comprehensive school system in Britain.

She has worked hard to obtain excellent grades. Yet she had been denied her opportunity to go to university for the past two years. She has faced this government down.

The regulations which were introduced by the last Tory/Liberal government made absolutely no economic sense and appear to have been dreamed up in a Daily Mail think tank.”

The Coram Children’s Legal Centre provided evidence for the hearing. Their solicitor, Alison East, said: [6]

“These young people have worked hard to do well at school and at college, and aspire to achieve the best they can. Seeing their friends and peers go to university when they cannot and being aware of being held back for as long as 10 years in pursuing qualifications that are essential in a competitive job market inevitably causes these young people to feel marginalised, which is why we are thrilled with the supreme court ruling in this instance.”

Just for Kids Law intervened in the case and estimated that between 600-1,000 students were affected by the restrictions each year. Their director Shauneen Lambe responded to the judgment by saying: [7]

This ruling is wonderful news for many ambitious and academically successful young people, who would otherwise be blocked from ever entering professions which require a degree. We look forward to working with government to make sure their ability to get a loan is restored in time for this year’s A-level results day on 13 August, so that students who have achieved their grades have the chance to take up their university places in the autumn.

The Daily Express noted that the judgment came "as figures revealed that students from the European Union have dodged paying back £43million in taxpayer-funded loans." [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

<i>Eweida v United Kingdom</i>

Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i> and <i>R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

S and Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581 is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights which held that holding DNA samples of individuals arrested but who are later acquitted or have the charges against them dropped is a violation of the right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.

<i>HJ and HT v Home Secretary</i>

HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning two men, from Iran and Cameroon respectively, claiming asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds of their homosexuality. The men's claims had previously been turned down on the basis they would not face persecution in their own countries if they would conceal their sexuality. The appeal therefore centred on the question as to whether the men on their return could reasonably be expected to tolerate this requirement of discretion; the so-called 'discretion' or 'reasonable tolerability' test. Interventions were made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

<i>R v Horncastle</i>

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

<i>R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis</i>

R v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011.

<i>Ladele v London Borough of Islington</i> United Kingdom labour law case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.

<i>R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 is a United Kingdom constitutional law and labour law case that found the conduct of the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy was unlawful. Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed driver, challenged the Jobcentre policy of making the unemployed work for private companies to get unemployment income. The outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.

Chahal v. United Kingdom was a 1996 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which applied Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibiting the deportation of Sikh separatist Mr Chahal to India because of the risk of violations of Article 3, in the form of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The right to family life is the right of all individuals to have their established family life respected, and to have and maintain family relationships. This right is recognised in a variety of international human rights instruments, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

<i>R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice</i> Case brought before UK Supreme Court regarding the right to die in English law.

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice was a 2014 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the question of the right to die in English law.

<i>Huang v Home Secretary</i>

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.

<i>Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others</i> Northern Ireland, UK discrimination, and freedom of speech and religious expression, legal case

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others[2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin) was heard in the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice on 22 May 2002 before the Honourable Mr. Justice Burnton.

<i>Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797 was heard in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court on 17 June 2003 before Lord Justice Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37 was heard by the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords on 26 May 2005 before Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, and Lord Carswell.

<i>Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom</i> (2008)

Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1194 was heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section in Strasbourg on 4 November 2008 appeal from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords before Lech Garlicki (President); Nicolas Bratza; Giovanni Bonello; Ljiljana Mijović; David Thór Björgvinsson; Ledi Bianku; Mihai Poalelungi.

<i>Begum v Home Secretary</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7 is the short name of three closely connected proceedings considered together in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning Shamima Begum, a woman born in the United Kingdom who at the age of 15 travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Her intention to return to England in 2019 resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.

References

  1. ↑ Belgian Linguistics Case (No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252, at para B3
  2. ↑ Bah v United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 773, paras 45-46
  3. ↑ MR JUSTICE HAYDEN (17 July 2014), Tigere, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills -And- Student Loans Company Ltd [2014] EWHC 2452 (Admin) , retrieved 5 July 2019
  4. ↑ [2014] EWCA Civ 1216
  5. ↑ "Student loan access opened to migrants". www.morningstaronline.co.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2016.
  6. ↑ Bowcott, Owen (29 July 2015). "School-leaver overturns immigration-related blanket ban on student loan". The Guardian . Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  7. ↑ Sanghani, Radhika (30 July 2015). "British-educated teens finally granted student loans to go to university". The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  8. ↑ Campbell, Scott (30 July 2015). "Zambian who lived in UK illegally WINS court battle for student loan". The Daily Express . Retrieved 19 August 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.