R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This appeal concerned the compatibility of the limitation on entitlement to one component of a welfare benefit, the individual element of child tax credit, with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The limitation restricts the maximum amount of the individual element to the amount payable in respect of two children, unless certain exceptions apply. The appellants, represented by the Child Poverty Action Group, argued that the limitation was incompatible with their rights under several articles of the ECHR. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the limitation was compatible with the Convention. The court considered the arguments relating to the impact of the limitation on the adult appellants' right to respect for their private and family life under article 8, and their right to found a family under article 12. The court found that the limitation did not interfere with the adults' reproductive choices, nor did it affect their decision-making in relation to the birth of children. The court also considered the argument that the limitation constituted indirect discrimination against women as compared with men, contrary to article 14 taken together with article 8 or with article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The court concluded that the evidence raised a presumption of discrimination on the ground of gender, and that it was for the Government to establish that the limitation had an objective and reasonable justification. The court found that the measure had such a justification, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court also considered whether the imposition of a limitation on entitlement based on the amount payable in respect of two children constituted direct discrimination against children living in households with more than that number of children, as compared with children living in households with that number of children or fewer. The court concluded that the argument should be rejected. The final issue was whether the measure in question had an objective and reasonable justification, notwithstanding its greater impact on women, and whether the differential treatment of children living in households with more than two children was justifiable. The court concluded that the measure had such a justification, and that the appeal should accordingly be dismissed.