- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Ethical Committee of St Mary’s Hospital (Manchester) ex p Harriott (1988)
Core Principle: Unlawful Discrimination
Core Principle: Unlawful Discrimination
- A decision made by a public body is unlawful if it discriminates against individuals based on legally protected characteristics.
- Applicant: Ms. Harriott
- Issue: Rejection of IVF treatment application
- Reason for Rejection: Unsuitability based on:
- Criminal record (prostitution)
- Previous rejection by adoption agencies
- The High Court rejected Ms. Harriott's application for judicial review. The decision to deny her IVF was deemed lawful.
- The court highlighted that a policy would be unlawful if it systematically discriminated against protected groups (e.g., "refuse all such treatment to anyone who was a Jew or coloured").
- Focus on Discrimination: The case emphasizes that policies should not discriminate based on legally protected characteristics.
- Race Relations Act 1976: Policies discriminating based on color or race are unlawful.
- Sex Discrimination Act 1975: Discrimination based on sex or marital status is unlawful.
- Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Discrimination based on disability is unlawful.
- Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), Schedule 1, Article 14: Important to consider in discrimination cases.
- What constitutes unlawful discrimination? Consider both direct and indirect discrimination.
- What are some examples of protected characteristics under UK law? (Race, sex, disability, etc.)
- How does the Harriott case illustrate the principle of non-discrimination? Why was the decision not considered discriminatory in this specific instance?
- What is the significance of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to discrimination?
- How do these anti-discrimination laws affect the decision-making processes of public bodies?
- Think of a hypothetical scenario where a public body does discriminate based on a protected characteristic. How would you analyze the legality of that decision based on the principles from the Harriott case and the relevant legislation?
0 Comments