[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)

In A&B the Supreme Court referred to Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47 relation to justification. The ECtHR referred to justification in the following terms;

“51.

… A difference of treatment is … discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The contracting state enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment.

52.

The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background. As a general rule, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention. On the other hand, a wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’.”

The Supreme Court in A&B also noted [83], as CICS operates in the field of social welfare policy courts “should normally be slow to substitute their view for that of the decision maker.” It was also noted in A&B as the basis of the discriminatory treatment complained of was not a “suspect ground” the test manifestly without reasonable foundation was appropriate. Finally, the Court took account of the views expressed in The Consultation Document (Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper CP3/2012, January 2012, Getting it right for victims and witnesses (Cm 8288)) as stated at para 207, given the scheme is a tax payer funded expression of public sympathy, it is reasonable there should be strict criteria around who should receive a share of its limited funds. It commented at paragraph 87 of A&B;