Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

The House of Lords considered whether decisions under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 determining an applicant's entitlement to homelessness assistance engage "civil rights" under article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and, if so, whether the internal review by a local authority officer and a subsequent appeal to the county court on a point of law satisfy the article 6(1) requirement of determination by an "independent and impartial tribunal". The Lords accepted that the reviewer, an officer of the housing authority, was not an independent tribunal. They assumed, without deciding, that the statutory right to accommodation under section 193 could be treated as a "civil right" for the purposes of article 6(1). Having made that assumption, they held that the composite procedure of an internal administrative review followed by an appeal to the county court on a point of law, with the county court empowered to quash decisions vitiated by illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality, provided sufficient "full jurisdiction" to meet article 6(1) in the normal Part VII case. The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal arose after the local authority offered the appellant a secure tenancy in accommodation which she refused; on review an internal council officer upheld the decision that the council's full housing duty had ceased, and the appellant appealed to the county court on points of law. The principal human rights issue was whether article 6(1) applied and, if so, whether the review decision and the appellate procedure complied with its requirements.

Background and parties:

• Claimant-appellant: Runa Begum, homeless applicant owed a duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Respondent: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which offered accommodation and conducted an internal review under section 202 and the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999.

Procedural history: The internal review by Mrs Hayes (a rehousing manager employed by the council) confirmed the council's decision; an appeal to the county court on points of law followed and earlier judgments at county court and Court of Appeal are discussed in the reasons (appeal to House of Lords from Court of Appeal [2002] EWCA Civ 239).

Relief sought: The appellant sought to overturn the review decision and contended that article 6(1) required determination by an independent tribunal and that the composite administrative-review-plus-county-court procedure was incompatible with article 6(1).

Issues framed:

1. Whether the review decision under section 202/section 193 determined a "civil right" for article 6(1) purposes.
2. Whether the reviewer, an officer of the council, was an "independent and impartial tribunal".
3. Whether the county court, on appeal under section 204 on a point of law, possessed sufficient "full jurisdiction" to secure article 6(1) protection despite the limited right of appeal on fact.

Reasoning and outcome: The House of Lords held that the reviewer was not independent of the authority and therefore did not satisfy article 6(1) in isolation. However, assuming (without deciding definitively) that the domestic right under section 193 amounted to a "civil right", the Lords concluded that the statutory scheme — internal review governed by Regulations and a right of appeal to the county court on points of law (including grounds equivalent to judicial review) — afforded adequate safeguards. The county court's power to quash decisions for illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality and to ensure review as the nature of the case required meant that article 6(1) was not breached in the normal Part VII case. The appeal was dismissed.

The Lords emphasised the need to balance effective judicial protection of rights with efficient administration of welfare schemes and recognised a margin of appreciation for states in structuring administrative decision-making and review procedures.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that the internal reviewer was not an independent tribunal for article 6(1) purposes but, assuming the applicant's domestic right under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 amounted to a "civil right", the composite procedure of an internal administrative review governed by statutory safeguards together with an appeal to the county court on a point of law (section 204) provided sufficient "full jurisdiction" to satisfy article 6(1) in the typical Part VII homelessness case. The county court's judicial review-style powers to quash decisions for illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality were adequate to secure compliance with article 6(1).

Appeal to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal (reported as [2002] EWCA Civ 239; reported at [2002] 1 WLR 2491). Earlier proceedings included a county court review and an appeal under section 204 to the county court; the Court of Appeal had allowed the authority's appeal and the claimant appealed to the House of Lords.