[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Razi v Department Of Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 1675 (31 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1675.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1675

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION,
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BULLIMORE)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 31st October 2001

Wednesday, 31st October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Mr Romano Razi is, he tells me, an artist, and for some years he has been drawing weekly benefit. When the Job Seekers' Allowance Act was passed in 1995 it had the effect that he could not continue to draw benefit unless he presented himself as being prepared to work. He says that an artist is an artist and he is not a barman, it is a different job. What happened to him is set out in his claim form in this way. He says he wants a declaration of the incompatibility of the Job Seekers' Allowance and the New Deal Scheme under the Human Rights Act 1998. He says this:

"On 9th October 2000 [at the Hillsborough Job Centre] I refused to accept going onto the new deal scheme because it was forced upon me. I think it is my human right not to be forced at any time to take part in any scheme like new deal because it is my belief that everyone has the right of security and freedom without being forced to do something against their will."

2. He then refers to Articles 4, 5, 14 and 17 of schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act.
3. That application for a declaration of incompatibility came before District Judge Kirkham on 3rd April 2000, and he struck out Mr Romano Razi's claim. He then applied for permission to appeal. He came before His Honour Judge Bentley, sitting as a section 9 judge, and that judge ordered that permission to be refused.
4. He then applied to go before His Honour Judge Bullimore, who was not happy with the way that His Honour Judge Bentley had dealt with it and thought that His Honour Judge Bentley might have been acting under a misapprehension, and therefore, in effect, heard the request afresh as though it was a request to him for permission to appeal. What Judge Bullimore said was that when he actually looked at the merits of the claim he did not think that Article 5 had anything to do with it. Article 5 talks about the right to liberty and security of person. He said he did not think that Article 17, which is concerned with the prohibition of abuse of rights, had anything to do with the matter. He then turned to Article 4, which deals with forced labour, which is prohibited, and he said that so far as he was concerned he did not think that forced labour was involved in this case in the sense in which it is used in the article, namely being forced to work for someone else, as opposed to being, in effect, forced to work if you wanted to have an income. He came to the conclusion that there was no likelihood of success, or any likelihood that at the end of the day Mr Razi would be able to show that the legislation was incompatible with the obligations imposed under the Convention.
5. I think formally there was in front of Judge Bullimore an application for permission to appeal; but we have in the bundle one order which the judge made refusing permission to appeal. It is then however corrected, and there is another order made by the judge which dismisses the appeal. I suspect the first is actually technically the correct one, and if it were correct then this court would have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because there is no right to appeal a refusal of permission to appeal to the court below. However, assuming in Mr Razi's favour that in fact the judge dismissed an appeal then this court would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
6. Mr Razi addressed to me, arguments which I can well understand and which are not new to him, that this legislation is unsatisfactory from the point of view of people in his position. Indeed, when the legislation was debated in Parliament those sort of points were made and not everyone was in favour of it. But rightly or wrongly Parliament has passed that Act. Mr Razi says that he really wants to have a proper debate on the legislation. I can understand that, but the courts are not the right forum for that. He can only go to the courts if it can be shown that Parliament has done something which is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
7. I am afraid, exactly like Judge Bullimore, that that particular argument has no hope of success at all, and so I dismiss this application.
(Application dismissed; no order for costs).