Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a Windrush generation member, challenges the Home Secretary's decision not to implement recommendations 3, 9, and 10 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review (WLLR).
- •The WLLR recommendations addressed the injustices suffered by the Windrush generation, including recommendations for reconciliation events, a Migrants' Commissioner, and a review of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI).
- •The Home Secretary initially accepted all WLLR recommendations but later decided not to proceed with recommendations 3, 9, and 10.
- •The Claimant argued breach of legitimate expectation (substantive and procedural), indirect discrimination (traditional and Thlimmenos), breach of the Tameside duty of inquiry, and breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
Legal Principles
Substantive Legitimate Expectation
R (Bhatt Murphy) v The Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755
Procedural Legitimate Expectation
R (Bhatt Murphy) v The Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755
Article 14 ECHR (Indirect Discrimination)
DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3
Thlimmenos Discrimination
Thlimmenos v Greece (2000) 31 EHRR 12
Tameside Duty of Inquiry
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Metropolitan Borough of Tameside [1977] AC 1014
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
Section 149, Equality Act 2010
Parliamentary Privilege
Article 9, Bill of Rights 1688
Outcomes
Ground 1 (Substantive Legitimate Expectation): Dismissed
The CIP did not contain a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified undertaking to implement recommendations 3, 9, and 10.
Ground 2 (Procedural Legitimate Expectation): Upheld in part
A procedural legitimate expectation to consult existed, but consultation was sufficient for Recommendation 3, but insufficient for Recommendations 9 and 10.
Ground 3 (Indirect Discrimination): Upheld in part
The decision regarding Recommendation 3 was not indirectly discriminatory but constituted Thlimmenos discrimination, which was justified. The decisions regarding Recommendations 9 and 10 were indirectly discriminatory and not justified.
Ground 4 (Tameside Duty of Inquiry): Dismissed
The Home Secretary had sufficient information to make the decisions, despite the lack of consultation on Recommendations 9 and 10.
Ground 5 (PSED): Upheld in part
The Home Secretary complied with the PSED regarding Recommendation 3 but not Recommendations 9 and 10 due to lack of evidence of due regard to the statutory criteria.