The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has just won a court case. It is one which will now set a staggering precedent. Because it effectively means the DWP can ignore benefit claimants’ human rights when it comes to the welfare state.

Precedent setting

Back in November 2016, Jacqueline and Jayson Carmichael successfully beat the government in court over the so-called “bedroom tax”. They argued the tax was discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as Jacqueline cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her impairments. And the court agreed, setting a precedent for other claimants.

The DWP challenged the decision, but lost.

But as politics.co.uk reported, it was back in court in February. The DWP was using the Carmichaels’ case to try and stop tribunal judges using the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to rule in favour of benefit claimants. Essentially, it’s saying that, if people claim it has broken human rights laws, this evidence will not be admissible under tribunals. And on Tuesday 20 March, a court agreed, ruling that benefit claimants can only argue against the DWP on human rights grounds in the High Court, not at tribunal level.

Ignoring human rights

In practice, the decision means that claimants who appeal benefit decisions will no longer be able to claim the DWP has breached any articles of the ECHR; for example, Article 14, the right to protection from discrimination. And as the Mirror reported:

Lawyers also suggested the ruling may also have serious implications for employment and immigration tribunals.

As I wrote at the time of the court hearing in February:

In January, the government was again found to have violated disabled people’s “basic” human rights. But this time under a ‘counterpart‘ treaty to the ECHR – the very laws the DWP is trying to stop people using. The report said the government had violated the European Social Charter by making benefit payments ‘manifestly inadequate’. That is, the DWP was not giving people enough money to live on; leaving them in poverty. It also said that the UK government must “urgently” reform “the benefit sanctions scheme”. So, it’s little wonder that the DWP is trying to stop people using the ECHR, when it has breached legislation used alongside it.

Angry reactions to the DWP

Social media reacted angrily on 20 March:

https://twitter.com/andrewweeden/status/976099065799806976

DWP prevention of people 'relying' on the human rights act.

If that doesn't say enough about why this government should be removed, then nothing will. — Jack LaMorte (@LamorteJack) March 20, 2018

And as one person pointed out, the DWP has effectively changed legislation without parliamentary approval:

You're allowed human rights, but DWP policy trumps them in the lower courts. Even when it hasn't been voted on by MPs and is just secondary legislation. — Rob Gershon (@Simplicitly) March 20, 2018

The DWP says…

A DWP spokesperson told The Canary:

This case related to constitutional questions on the remedy a tribunal may give where a breach of human rights is established, and we are pleased the Court of Appeal agreed that it’s for the Government to amend relevant regulations to provide a remedy. Since 2014, we have given local authorities £60m a year in Discretionary Housing Payments for people affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy who need extra help.

Damning. Just damning.

The judge said that the Carmichaels have the right to appeal. But Jayson Carmichael told politics.co.uk:

It’s been so stressful for us, we might decide that we’ve just had enough and that it’s time for somebody else to take up the fight…

It is a damning indictment of the government that two people it’s supposed to support feel beaten down by it. It’s even more damning that the DWP has the audacity to try and block human rights laws being used against it. And it’s scandalous that a supposedly independent court agrees with it.

Get Involved!

– Support Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), fighting for disabled people’s rights.

Featured image via UK government/Wikimedia and Dan Perry/Flickr </s> Appeal judges have ruled that a Scottish court has to properly examine claims that the UK should be able to unilaterally abandon Brexit without permission from other EU member states.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord president, said the cross-party group of politicians behind the case had raised a point “of great importance” that had to be fully heard.

The group, which includes Labour, Scottish Green party, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat politicians, wants the European court of justice to issue a definitive ruling on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its article 50 letter which triggered the Brexit process.

They say UK government ministers and the European commission are wrong to insist that the article 50 process can only be abandoned if all the other 27 EU member states agree. They argue that EU treaties make no mention of that condition.

The group, whose members include MSPs from Holyrood, Westminster MPs and two MEPs, need the permission of a Scottish court to send the case to the European court.

The appeal hearing at the court of session, Scotland’s civil court, was arranged after another judge, Lord Doherty, had thrown out the group’s initial application for an interim hearing of the case for a referral to the European court.

The appeal hearing ruled Doherty was wrong to claim the issue was hypothetical and academic since the UK government had insisted it had no intention of abandoning Brexit and so far there was no evidence parties at Westminster would block it.

Carloway said that raised significant problems for the petitioners because the statements so far by UK ministers on whether article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn were ambiguous.

Even so, in a legal victory for the petitioners, Carloway said they were right to argue that the Westminster parliament was sovereign.

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance,” he said. “After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.” </s> The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the Government’s case that fourteen men interned in Northern Ireland in the 1970s were subjected to torture.

The court ruled in 1978 the treatment of the so-called “hooded men” had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture.

A revised ruling in the case taken by Ireland against the UK was sought in 2014 on the basis of new information disclosed by RTÉ which the Government argued was not available to the court at the time of the original decision.

Ireland argued that new documents showed that the UK knew of the long-term effects the interrogation techniques used on the men would have.

However, in a ruling this morning the Strasbourg-based court that oversees the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights, rejected the Government’s application for a revised decision.

It expressed doubt that the documents submitted supported the argument that a witness for the UK government had given misleading evidence as to the effect of the five interrogation techniques used on the fourteen men.

It also said that the evidence may not have had a “decisive influence” on the court’s original decision that the interrogation techniques constituted “a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights” but did not constitute a practice of torture within the meaning of the provision.

“The court expresses doubts whether the documents submitted by the applicant Government in support of the first ground of revision contain sufficient prima facie evidence of the alleged new fact and considers that the documents submitted in support of the second ground did not demonstrate facts which were “unknown” to the Court when it delivered the original judgment.”

“Even assuming that the documents submitted in support of the first ground for revision demonstrate the fact alleged, namely that Dr L. misled the Commission as regards the effects of the five [interrogation]techniques, the court considers that it cannot be said that it might have had a decisive influence on the court’s finding in the original judgment that the use of the five techniques constituted a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention but did not constitute a practice of torture within the meaning of that provision.

“The applicant Government’s request for revision must therefore be dismissed,” the court said. It dismissed the request by six votes to one.

A dissenting opinion was issued by the Irish judge, Síofra O’Leary.

The seven-judge Chamber also included a judge from the UK, Lord Reed, who agreed with the majority decision. A referral to the 17-judge Grand Chamber is possible. A request for such a move would be considered by a panel of the Grand Chamber.

The decision is a major blow to the surviving members of the group and their families of those who have since died. A press conference is due to be held in Belfast later this morning.

The five interrogation techniques used against by the men by the British army were prolonged standing against a wall, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink

An initial report on the case was issued by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976 and found that the men had been tortured. The Commission was a body which dealt with cases before they went to the Strasbourg court. It issued reports,establishing the facts and expressing opinions, and could refer cases to the court.

Ireland asked for a referral to the Strasbourg court itself for a ruling. It was the first time a government took another government before the court.

The court came to a different conclusion than the Commission on the question of torture, finding that there had been inhuman and degrading treatment rather than torture. The Commission no longer exists.

Amnesty has said the 1978 finding has had disastrous consequences and has been used by the UK and the US to justify harsh interrogation techniques it operated.

In its original judgment the Strasbourg court said it appeared to have been the intention of the European Convention on Human Rights to attach a special stigma to “torture” and to distinguish between it and “inhuman or degrading treatment”.

“Torture” was understood to mean “deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering”.

The Strasbourg court has since made torture findings against Turkey (1996 and 1996), Russia and Ukraine (both 2011) and France (1999).

In the ruling against France the court said that as the Convention was a living instrument, treatment which had in the past been considered as “inhuman and degrading treatment” as opposed to “torture” could be classified differently in future.

It noted that an “increasingly high standard” in the area of the protection of human rights inevitably required “greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies”. </s> A legal challenge to the UK Government on Brexit can proceed to a full hearing in the Scottish courts, the country's most senior judge has ruled.

Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said a previous decision to dismiss the case had "erred" in ruling that there was "no real prospect of success".

He has now granted permission for the challenge - which has been brought by a cross-party group of politicians from Holyrood and the European Parliament - to proceed.

Jo Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project and one of the petitioners, tweeted: "The Inner House of the Court of Session has given us permission."

While Lord Carloway was critical of the "rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material" in the petition, he stated there was a "point of substance" which should be "argued in the normal way" in court.

Labour, Scottish Green and SNP representatives united to bring forward the legal challenge, with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler all involved, along with Mr Maugham.

The group believe the UK Parliament could unilaterally halt the Brexit process if the final deal negotiated by the Government is rejected by MPs in the House of Commons.

They claim this offers a third option, instead of Britain having to choose between a bad deal on the UK's future relationship with Europe or crashing out of the EU with no deal.

The group is ultimately seeking a definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on whether the withdrawal process triggered under Article 50 of theTreaty on European Union can be revoked by the UK on its own, without first securing the consent of the other 27 EU member states.

Their legal team went to the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - in Edinburgh in February to ask a judge to refer the question to the Luxembourg court.

Judge Lord Doherty originally refused to move the case on, saying the issue was "hypothetical and academic", and that he is "not satisfied the application has a real prospect of success".

However, in his opinion Lord Carloway said: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance."

He added: "On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

"After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

Lord Carloway said that given the case related to "a matter of very great constitutional importance", the court had taken "quite some time to consider the petition" - although he said this was "an exceptional course and it is not one which a court should follow in the ordinary case". </s> A cross-party group of Scottish politicians has won permission for a judicial review of whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

The MEPs and MSPs want to get a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether Brexit could be called off.

Lord Doherty had originally rejected their application for a review, saying it had little prospect of success.

However, after an appeal a panel of judges said there was "a point of substance" to be addressed in the case.

Lord Carloway, Scotland's top judge, overturned Lord Doherty's decision and has allowed permission for a judicial review to proceed.

The legal action was launched by a group of politicians from the SNP, Labour, the Scottish Greens and the Lib Dems following a crowdfunding campaign.

The politicians, who are backed by the Good Law Project campaign group, said they were seeking "clarity to inform the democratic process" on whether Brexit could be halted, so that politicians know "what options are open to them".

They want their case referred to the EU's Court of Justice to determine whether it would be lawful for the UK to revoke Article 50, the mechanism which was used to trigger exit in March 2017.

However Lord Doherty said that "given that neither parliament nor the government has any wish to withdraw the notification", the question whether or not it could be done unilaterally "is hypothetical and academic".

He said: "The fact of the matter is that parliament has not proposed, let alone enacted, legislation directed to the United Kingdom's withdrawal of its Article 50 notification.

"The government's policy is not in conflict with the legislative will of parliament. Parliament authorised the government to give the notification. Neither parliament nor the government wishes that the notification be withdrawn.

"In those circumstances it is not a matter which this court, or the Court of Justice of the European Union, require to adjudicate upon."

The politicians appealed against this ruling, and this was subsequently considered by a panel of judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session, led by Lord Carloway.

He was critical of the arguments put forward, saying the petition had "significant problems" and calling the position of the UK government "ambiguous".

He said that if the petition was "shorn of its rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material and reduced, after adjustment, to a manageable size", then "a case of substance - albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed - can be discovered".

Lord Carloway added: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence members of parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

"After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

He concluded that there was "a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed" in the case, "which should be argued in the normal way".

The judge said he would allow some time for the two sides to formulate their arguments before further hearings in the Scottish courts are set. </s> The High Court sprang a surprise today when it ruled that MPs must get a vote on whether Britain leaves Europe.

Three senior judges have ruled the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Brexit despite the referendum decision.

They say that Parliament must vote on the issue before Theresa May can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK's exit from the European Union.

It is a surprise victory for campaigners who were seeking to challenge the Brexit decision - who say that Parliament must also be consulted.

But what happens next? The Mirror's political staff offer some answers - and predictions ...

The High Court was asked to look at claims Brexit shouldn't be triggered without MPs' approval.

Today it sided with the campaigners who brought the claims - i.e., against the government.

Three of England's most senior judges gave the ruling, which is rare because usually just one judge gets involved.

They were Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales.

What exactly does the ruling say?

Theresa May wanted to use ancient "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 - the mechanism under EU law that starts the two-year process of Brexit.

Judges said she couldn't do that without consulting Parliament first.

Lord Thomas said: "This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union. That is a political issue."

Mrs May was relying on ancient 'royal prerogative' - which a packed team of campaigners said was not enough to ignore elected MPs.

Lord Thomas added: "The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 [European Communities] Act to support it.

"The court expressly accepts the principle arguments of the claimants. The government does not have the power under the crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 ."

Will this stop us leaving the EU?

The ruling was only about the right of Parliament to have a say on the timing.

Downing Street says Theresa May still plans to trigger Article 50 before the end of March next year.

Is this the end of the legal fight?

The Government is appealing the decision in the Supreme Court, which could reverse the judgement.

It got special permission to skip out the normal step of going to the Court of Appeal first.

That means we're likely to have a final say in the next few weeks, rather than waiting for months on end.

When will Parliament get a vote, and how?

If today's decision stands, Parliament should get a vote before Theresa May invokes Article 50 .

She wanted to invoke it by the end of March 2017, so it should be before then.

But of course a Parliamentary process could throw the whole timetable off.

It was thought a vote would be held on a substantive motion by the government, asking MPs to back the core principles of its negotiating strategy.

However, Brexit Secretary David Davis believes it would involve a full Act of Parliament.

That is a far bigger deal. It would involve several stages, committees, amendments, and far more chances for MPs to tweak the detail before Article 50 is invoked.

It could end up 'ping ponging' between the House of Commons and the House of Lords - where Remain-backing Labour and Lib Dems together outnumber the Tories.

Could MPs and the House of Lords block Article 50?

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leader in the Lords, Baroness Smith, have both said they will not vote against Article 50.

However, pro-Remain MPs and peers could try to amend any legislation.

Defeated Labour leadership contender Owen Smith has said Labour should amend the Article 50 Bill to give the British people the final say on real terms of Brexit in a second referendum.

What if they do block it?

Even if it's done for principled reasons, a full 'blocking' would pit MPs against a direct vote by the British public.

As Brexit -backing Tory Iain Duncan Smith said today: "That is a constitutional crisis."

We can't say exactly what would happen, partly because Britain doesn't have a proper, ordered, written constitution like the US does.

But something would have to give to break the deadlock.

Why is this such a problem for Theresa May?

The Prime Minister does not want the Brexit process to become bogged down in Parliament.

It could delay the triggering of Article 50 and open up fresh divisions in the Tories.

Many MPs will now demand she explains in more detail her plans for leaving the EU before agreeing to vote on Article 50.

They are looking for more clarity on complex questions on workers’ rights, the status of EU nationals in the UK and what happens to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Could we have a snap general election?

The Prime Minister has previously ruled out an early poll.

But she may have to reconsider this decision if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court judgement and MPs derail Article 50.

A snap general election could be the only way to break the deadlock and assert her authority. </s> EDINBURGH, March 20 (Reuters) - - Scotland's top court gave a favourable ruling on Tuesday to a legal case brought by anti-Brexit campaigners seeking to obtain a court opinion that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit if it wanted to.

The campaigners want a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

Scotland's Court of Session, reversing an unfavourable ruling by a lower court, said that the case should be given consideration by the ECJ.

The case will not go directly the the ECJ, however, as it must clear other legal hurdles within Britain. The campaigners have said they would go all the way to Britain's Supreme Court if necessary to make their case. (Reporting by Elisabeth O'Leary; Editing by Estelle Shirbon) </s> A cross party group of Scottish politicians have won the right to have their attempt to find out if Brexit can be cancelled heard in the courts.

The group of Green, SNP and Labour politicians are attempting to find out if the UK can go to the European Court of Justice for a judicial review on whether it can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification.

Earlier this year a judge at the Court of Session refused to allow their action to proceed. Lord Doherty rejected their application on the grounds that “the prospect of success falls very far short”.

But Andy Wightman and Ross Greer of the Greens, the SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEP’s David Martin and Catherine Stihler have successfully appealed Lord Docherty’s decision.

In upholding the politicians’ appeal in the Court of Session the Lord President Lord Carloway said a “case of substance albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed, can be discovered”.

Lord Carloway said: “The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.“

DOWNLOAD THE SCOTSMAN APP ON ITUNES OR GOOGLE PLAY </s> MPs must get a vote on whether Britain leaves Europe, the high court has ruled today.

In a shock move, three senior judges have ruled the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Brexit despite the referendum decision.

They say that Parliament must vote on the issue before Theresa May can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK's exit from the European Union.

It is a surprise victory for campaigners who were seeking to challenge the Brexit decision - who say that Parliament must also be consulted.

The ruling against the Government was made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, sitting with two other senior judges in London.

Ministers will appeal against a High Court ruling that Theresa May does not have the power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit, a Government spokesman said.

Unless overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court, the ruling threatens to plunge the Government's plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people" who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum.

But the Lord Chief Justice declared: "The Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The Government has been given the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court but made no immediate announcement about whether it will.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said the Government is "disappointed" at the High Court decision on Article 50 adding "the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum".

"The Government is disappointed by the court's judgement," he said.

"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Acts of Parliament. The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.

"This judgment raises important and complex matters of law and it's right that we consider it carefully before deciding how to proceed."

He added: "I have nothing to add other than to reiterate that it's right that the Government will consider carefully before deciding how to proceed following the judgment."

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron welcomed the news, adding: "It is disappointing that this Government was so intent on undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they forced this decision to be made in the court, but I welcome the news today that MPs will get to vote on the triggering of Article 50.

"Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the Government now lay out their negotiating strategy to Parliament, before such a vote is held.

"So far May's team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritising what is best for Britain, and it's time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously.

"Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

But interim Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he was worried that politicians were attempting to block or delay Brexit and warned that such a move would provoke huge public anger.

"I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand," he said. "Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June referendum result."

"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

The pound rose sharply immediately after the ruling as the international markets reacted to the news.

Neil Wilson, markets analyst at ETX Capital, said: "Most MPs are natural Remainers, although they would face intense pressure from constituents to deliver the referendum mandate."
The Department for Work and Pensions wins a court case holding that benefits claimants cannot raise arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights at tribunals, and must instead go via the High Court.