R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust [2006] 1 WLR 2649

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Rogers (R) was diagnosed with breast cancer and sought funding from the Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust (S) for Herceptin, an unlicensed drug with clear therapeutic benefits. Although R had initially paid for some treatment privately, she could not afford to continue. S denied the funding, citing a policy that only allowed treatment in exceptional clinical or personal circumstances, despite having sufficient funds to cover all eligible patients. R's application for judicial review was initially refused by the High Court.

Issue: Was the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule unreasonable, thereby justifying R's claim for judicial review?

Held: Appeal allowed; the Court determined that S had no valid reasons to deny treatment to eligible patients except under exceptional circumstances. The decision affecting fundamental rights failed the anxious scrutiny test as no competing socioeconomic considerations were involved.

Key Judicial Statements: The court stated that decisions impacting fundamental rights must be subjected to stringent scrutiny, particularly when no significant competing interests are at play, reinforcing the need for rational justifications in health care funding decisions.

💡 LevelupLaw: The case illustrates the importance of rational decision-making by public authorities, particularly regarding health care funding, emphasizing that blanket policies must not infringe on individuals' rights without adequate justification.