Tweet
Dear all,
I am wrestling with a conundrum.
Section 112 of the Equality Act 2010 states as follows:
112 Aiding contraventions
(1) A person (A) must not knowingly help another (B) to do anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 111 (a basic contravention).
Using a mere example to demonstrate the difficulty I have:
A nurse refused to care for a patient for discriminatory reasons (let's say the patient has a horrific disease which amounts to a 'disability'). The patient reports a concern to the Nursing and Midwifery Council who knowingly helps the nurse discriminate against the patient (for whatever reason).
Could the Nursing and Midwifery Council successfully defend a section 112 claim against it on the basis that the alleged discriminatory act of the nurse took place before it had knowledge of it therefore it could not retrospectively aid that act?
Could it be argued that the nurse has a continuing duty of care therefore the discriminatory act is continues up until the time the Nursing and Midwifery Council were informed of it therefore the time that the alleged act occurred is somewhat irrelevant?
In Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and South Bank University [2001] UKHL 14 [2001] IRLR 305 HL (a Relations Act 1976 case), the Lords suggest that the phrase 'knowingly aids' in section 33 did not imply a desire, intent or aim. All it meant is that the 'aider' had "given some kind of assistance to the other person. The amount or value of that help or assistance is of no importance. Nor is the time at which it is given. It may or may not have been necessary. All that is needed is an act of some kind, done knowingly, which helps the other person to do the unlawful act.
Any input appreciated.
I am wrestling with a conundrum.
Section 112 of the Equality Act 2010 states as follows:
112 Aiding contraventions
(1) A person (A) must not knowingly help another (B) to do anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 111 (a basic contravention).
Using a mere example to demonstrate the difficulty I have:
A nurse refused to care for a patient for discriminatory reasons (let's say the patient has a horrific disease which amounts to a 'disability'). The patient reports a concern to the Nursing and Midwifery Council who knowingly helps the nurse discriminate against the patient (for whatever reason).
Could the Nursing and Midwifery Council successfully defend a section 112 claim against it on the basis that the alleged discriminatory act of the nurse took place before it had knowledge of it therefore it could not retrospectively aid that act?
Could it be argued that the nurse has a continuing duty of care therefore the discriminatory act is continues up until the time the Nursing and Midwifery Council were informed of it therefore the time that the alleged act occurred is somewhat irrelevant?
In Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and South Bank University [2001] UKHL 14 [2001] IRLR 305 HL (a Relations Act 1976 case), the Lords suggest that the phrase 'knowingly aids' in section 33 did not imply a desire, intent or aim. All it meant is that the 'aider' had "given some kind of assistance to the other person. The amount or value of that help or assistance is of no importance. Nor is the time at which it is given. It may or may not have been necessary. All that is needed is an act of some kind, done knowingly, which helps the other person to do the unlawful act.
Any input appreciated.
(most of the Beagles are probably out doing things with their families) ... give it a bit longer xx
Comment