S v. CICB ETC & Anor [2004] ScotCS 172 (08 July 2004)

S v. CICB ETC & Anor [2004] ScotCS 172 (08 July 2004)

The exclusion of the petitioner from compensation under the 'same roof' rule was not irrational or disproportionate. The scheme's design, including the cut-off date and exclusion of pre-1979 intra-family abuse claims, was the result of careful policy analysis, consultation, and resource considerations. The petitioner had no civil right or possession under the scheme, so Articles 6 and 1 of Protocol No.1 were not engaged, and Article 14 could not apply independently. Even if Article 14 were engaged, the difference in treatment was objectively justified and proportionate to the legitimate aim of managing public funds and controlling costs. There was no unlawful discrimination or breach of...

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 172
Parties
Petitioner: S.; Defender: C.I.C.B. ETC; Defender: Advocate General
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Petition for Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Criminal Injuries Compensation, Article 14 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol No.1 ECHR, Judicial Review, Same Roof Rule
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Compensation Law Discrimination Criminal Injuries Compensation Article 14 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Article 1 Protocol No.1 ECHR +2 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.

Petitioner

C.I.C.B. ETC

Defender

Advocate General

Defender

Procedural Posture

Petition for Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of the petitioner from compensation under the 'same roof' rule is incompatible with her rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1, taken with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the relevant paragraph of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 is discriminatory and lacks objective justification

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the petitioner from compensation under the 'same roof' rule was not irrational or disproportionate. The scheme's design, including the cut-off date and exclusion of pre-1979 intra-family abuse claims, was the result of careful policy analysis, consultation, and resource considerations. The petitioner had no civil right or possession under the scheme, so Articles 6 and 1 of Protocol No.1 were not engaged, and Article 14 could not apply independently. Even if Article 14 were engaged, the difference in treatment was objectively justified and proportionate to the legitimate aim of managing public funds and controlling costs. There was no unlawful discrimination or breach of...

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petition for reduction of the decision and declarator of incompatibility refused
  • No order for compensation to the petitioner