This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Race discrimination: "Aids" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Anyanwu and another v South Bank Students’ Union and South Bank University [2001] IRLR 305 HL (2 other reports)

    • Test established

      Date:
      1 June 2001

      In Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union the House of Lords has ruled that in order to "aid" someone to do an unlawful act, it is not necessary for the aider to be a secondary, rather than a primary, actor.

    • Aiding unlawful acts

      Date:
      1 May 2001

      In Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union and South Bank University (22 March 2001), the House of Lords rules that a person "aids" another to commit an unlawful act if he helps, assists, cooperates or collaborates with him. To be someone who "aids", it is not necessary that the person is a secondary, rather than a primary, actor.

In Anyanwu and another v South Bank Student Union and another (Commission for Racial Equality intervening) [2001] IRLR 305, the House of Lords holds that the word "aids" in s.33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 is a familiar word in everyday use that bears no technical or special meaning in this context. A person aids another if he or she helps or assists that other. He or she does so whether or not the help is substantial and productive, provided it is not so insignificant as to be negligible. The interpretation of s.33(1) adopted by the majority in the Court of Appeal (see Narrow definition of "knowingly aids" for purposes of Race Relations Act) should not be accepted.