Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULTS: R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : r-wright-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-2009-ukhl-3
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 27, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88617

(House of Lords; Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond; 21 January 2009)

Four registered nurses sought judicial review of the scheme under Care Standards Act 2000, by which care workers could be placed on a list of those unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, the 'POVA list'. Placement on the list deprived the individual of any employment as a care worker, and meant that he or she would be unable to obtain such work with another employer. One of the key complaints was that a care worker was entitled to a judicial hearing of any challenge to his or her placement on the list only after a lengthy administrative process, but that until a final decision on the issue, the care worker remained on the list provisionally. All four nurses had been placed on the list provisionally; only one had subsequently been confirmed, and she had subsequently appealed successfully to the Care Standards Tribunal. The High Court granted a declaration of incompatibility with care workers' rights under European Convention on Human Rights, Arts 6 and 8. The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling, holding that giving a care worker the right to make representations before placing the worker on the list cured the various human rights breaches identified. The nurses appealed to the House of Lords.

The appeal was allowed and the declaration of incompatibility granted. The scheme could not assume that European Convention on Human Rights, Art 6(1) would never apply to provisional listing on the basis that the individual care worker could obtain work in some other capacity or would retire in any event; the question whether it was engaged should not be decided by examining on a case by case basis the actual effect of the provisional listing on the individual worker. There would be some people for whom the impact of being listed upon their personal relationships was so great as to constitute an interference with the respect for private life. The scheme must therefore be devised in such a way as to prevent possible breaches of Art 8 rights. The procedure for provisional listing did not meet Art 6(1) requirements; the problem stemmed from the draconian effect of provisional listing, coupled with the inevitable delay before a full merits hearing could be obtained.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from