Razi v Department Of Social Security

Welfare legislation is not reviewed in court as a forum for general debate about its merits. A claimant must identify an incompatibility with Convention obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Requiring a person to undertake work or join a work scheme as a condition of receiving benefit was not shown, on the claim advanced, to constitute forced labour contrary to Article 4. Articles 5 and 17 did not engage the complaint. The application was therefore dismissed.

Mr Razi, an artist receiving weekly benefit, challenged the effect of the Job Seekers' Allowance Act 1995 and the New Deal Scheme. He alleged that refusing to participate in the scheme could result in loss of benefit and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, relying on Articles 4, 5, 14 and 17 of Schedule 1.

District Judge Kirkham struck out the claim. His Honour Judge Bentley refused permission to appeal. His Honour Judge Bullimore reconsidered the request, addressed the merits, and concluded that Articles 5 and 17 were irrelevant and that the alleged requirement did not constitute forced labour for the purposes of Article 4. The central issue was whether the claim disclosed any realistic prospect of establishing incompatibility with Convention obligations.

1. The Court dismissed the application, with no order for costs. It noted that, if the lower court had merely refused permission to appeal, there would have been no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court nevertheless proceeded on the assumption, favourable to Mr Razi, that the lower court had dismissed an appeal.
2. The court's role was to determine whether Parliament had enacted legislation incompatible with Convention obligations. It was not the appropriate forum for a general debate about the merits or policy of the benefit legislation.
3. The Court accepted the lower court's analysis of the Convention provisions relied upon. Article 5, concerning liberty and security of person, had no application to the complaint. Article 17, concerning abuse of rights, was likewise irrelevant.
4. The alleged compulsion did not amount to forced labour in the relevant sense. The complaint concerned being required to work, or participate in a work scheme, if the claimant wished to retain an income. That was distinct from being forced to work for someone else. The Court adopted the conclusion that the claim had no realistic prospect of establishing incompatibility with Article 4 or the other provisions relied upon.
5. The application was accordingly dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — assumed jurisdiction in the claimant's favour, considered the merits, and dismissed the application: [2001] EWCA Civ 1675.
2. Queen's Bench Division, Sheffield District Registry — District Judge Kirkham struck out the claim; His Honour Judge Bentley refused permission to appeal; His Honour Judge Bullimore reconsidered the request and made an order dismissing the appeal.