Stokes, Re Judicial Review [2009] NIQB 102 (21 December 2009)

Stokes, Re Judicial Review [2009] NIQB 102 (21 December 2009)

The applicant's differential treatment arose from the circumstances of being interviewed by social security officers, not from her status. Regulation 7A lawfully distinguishes between police and social security interviews based on the powers of the officers involved. There is no arguable breach of Article 6 or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] NIQB 102
Parties
Applicant: Bridget Stokes; Proposed Respondent: Legal Services Commission; Intervener: Northern Ireland Court Service
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Stage
Outcome
Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Discrimination, Article 6 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Means Testing, Benefit Fraud Investigation
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Social Security Law Legal Aid Discrimination Article 6 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Means Testing +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridget Stokes

Applicant

Legal Services Commission

Proposed Respondent

Northern Ireland Court Service

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of non means tested legal aid for a social security interview breaches Article 6 or Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was discriminated against contrary to Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether social security officers qualify as 'constables' under Regulation 7A for legal aid purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's differential treatment arose from the circumstances of being interviewed by social security officers, not from her status. Regulation 7A lawfully distinguishes between police and social security interviews based on the powers of the officers involved. There is no arguable breach of Article 6 or Article 14 ECHR, and thus no basis for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused