to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation to challenge this decision, and helped him to do so. Case studies extracted from British Institute of Human Rights report, Changing Lives.100 Public pressure resulting in change to policy • Mr and Mrs Driscoll had lived together for over 65 years. Unable to walk unaided, Mr Driscoll relied on his wife to help him move around. She was blind and relied on her husband as her eyes. When Mr Driscoll was moved into a residential care home, Mrs Driscoll wanted to move to the home with her husband but was told she didn’t meet the criteria. This was a breach of the couple’s right to a family life as protected by the Human Rights Act, and a public campaign was launched to encourage the public authority to change their policy. As a result, Mrs Driscoll’s needs were reassessed and the couple were reunited – setting a precedent for elderly couples to be kept together in the same care home. Case study extracted from Amnesty International submission.101 Case law The following is an example of how the right to privacy was used as a means of obtaining appropriate housing for a woman with disability and her family: R (Bernard) v Enfield LB102 • This case concerned a claim for damages by a woman with severe disabilities. Mrs Bernard and her husband, Mr Bernard, her sole caregiver, alleged that the local Housing Department did not provide them with accommodation suitably adapted for her disability. • Mrs Bernard is confined to a wheelchair most of the time. The Department had accommodated the claimants in a home that was not wheelchair accessible. This required that Mr Bernard be present in the home for the majority of the time, because he had to lift his wife for all transfers from the chair, including using the restroom and bathing. Many additional consequences followed, including adverse effects on their children’s lives and on their ability to enjoy a typical private family life. The claimants made many requests to the Housing Department for appropriate housing, which were largely ignored or delayed. The Social Services Department filed a detailed report with the Housing Department detailing the ways in which their current home was unsuited to their needs. This report went largely unaddressed. The Court found that the Housing Department was in violation of Article 8, which requires that governments respect the private and family lives of persons. The decision stated that article 8 may require that positive steps be taken to ensure that such respect is provided, particularly when a case concerns particularly vulnerable groups like persons with disabilities. Here, such positive steps would include the provision of suitably adapted accommodation to enable the claimants and their children to lead as normal a family life as possible. The Court held that the Department’s inaction displayed a singular lack of respect for the private and family life of the claimants. Appropriate accommodation would have ‘restored her dignity as a human being’. • A record damages award of £10,000 under the Human Rights Act was made in this case. Case summary extracted from ESCR-NET.103 Systemic reporting The Equality and Human Rights Commission has used its power to conduct systemic reporting to address human rights issues in the aged sector. For example, it launched a 2011 report that was based on a broad evidence base, with involvement of 1,254 individuals, local authorities and care providers.104 FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 85