header-logo header-logo

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

12 June 2008
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Case law , Local government , Discrimination , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Gichura v Home Office [2008] All ER (D) 257 (May)

The claimant was a wheelchair user. He was placed in immigration detention. He complained that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to his disability.

HELD Some functions are plainly government-like, such as the administrative handling of a detainee upon arrival, and so are out with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). However, the fact a service is incidental to detention is not enough to exclude that service from the ambit of DDA 1995 if, when performed by an ordinary person, it would be the provision of a service within the meaning of DDA 1995, s 19.

A public duty and a service can be performed at the same time. There is distinction between acts that might be done by a private person, and acts that a private person would never do, with only the latter being government functions. It is inconceivable that Parliament did not intend DDA 1995 to apply in circumstances such as detention in a detention centre, police custody or prison.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll