“We wish to pay tribute to the way the case has been handled by all concerned, albeit after a slow start on the part of the Secretary of State.” (per Lord Justice Richards in R (on the application of Maya Evans) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin))

Lord Justice Richards
 
 

Graduate Issues Judicial Review Over Poundland Work

Cait Reilly (22) has today issued landmark judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She is challenging the Government over its sector-based work academy scheme, under which she was required to carry out two weeks of unpaid labour at discount retailer Poundland.

Background
 
Cait was told in October of an ‘opportunity’ to attend an Open Day about job vacancies that could lead to a week’s training and a job interview. When she attended the Open Day, she discovered that in fact the training would last up to six weeks, including a two-week, unpaid retail placement. She decided that this ‘opportunity’ was not for her – Cait, who wants to forge a career in museums, had been carrying out voluntary work at a Birmingham museum, and the Government scheme would have meant giving this up. In addition, Cait already had plenty of retail experience. When she expressed these concerns to her Jobcentre Plus adviser, she was told that her participation in the Scheme was "mandatory" and that if she did not comply, she would lose her benefits.
 
As the Sunday Times reported this week, Cait subsequently had to clean and stack shelves at the Poundland store in King’s Heath, Birmingham for two weeks. She claims that staff there "did not know what to do" with her and her fellow jobseekers when they reported for work on their first day. Despite the promise of a "guaranteed interview", this has not materialised.
 
The Legal Challenge
 
The Government has already admitted that Cait should not have had to carry out her sector-based work academy as a result of its failure to provide her with a notice setting out full information as to what the scheme required. However, in pre-action correspondence, it has denied that the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011 go beyond the Secretary of State’s powers under the Jobseeker’s Act 1995 and that sector-based work academies – which have been set up without reference to Parliament – are unlawful. She also argues that she has been subjected to "forced or compulsory labour" within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
Implications

Cait is asking the High Court to quash the Regulations, which the Government has attempted to rely upon in setting up this and other schemes, such as the Community Action Programme under which the long-term unemployed can be required to undertake up to six months of unpaid work. The case therefore affects potentially thousands of current and future jobseekers.

It should be noted that those affected by the scheme are not those who are failing to fulfil their "jobseeking conditions" – only those who are complying with those conditions (including actively seeking work) are eligible for participation in the scheme. The Government has decided to introduce a plethora of "work for your benefit" schemes despite commissioning an expert report that told it in clear terms that such schemes do not have any positive effect on employment prospects.
 
Jim Duffy, Cait’s solicitor, said today:

"The Government has created – without Parliamentary authority – a complex array of schemes that allow Job Centres to force people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks or months at a time. By doing so, it is worsening rather than alleviating the cycle of unemployment that is such a significant barrier to addressing the economic crisis."

The Secretary of State now has 21 days to set out his defence to the challenge.


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  PIL Press Release: High Court Rules that Government must not have Blanket Policy that Excludes thos...
  PIL Press Release: High Court Quashes Decision of Lincolnshire County Council to Close Libraries!...
  PIL: Residence Test for Legal Aid Struck Down...
  PIL: Murdered Soldier’s Mother Loses High Court Case...
  House of Commons Votes on Residence Test ...
  House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution reports concerns about Bill's impact on Judicial...
  PIL: High Court grants declaration of incompatibility of primary legislation with the right to a fai...
  The Morning Star: The Brutality of Occupation ...
  Service users of Lifeworks in Cambridge successfully negotiated with the local NHS trust to protect ...
  Joint committee on human rights report conclusion: residence test incompatible with children's right...
  Scathing Judgment in the Recent Challenge to Exceptional Case Funding ...
  The Law Society Gazette - Shiner Accuses Grayling of ‘Personal Vendetta’...
  The Times: Scourge of the Army Insists: ‘I Won’t be Stopped by Bullying'...
  The Gazette - In Praise of: Phil Shiner...
  The Gazette - Lawyer in the news: Phil Shiner...
  Joint Committee on Human Rights on Judicial Review...
  Joint Committee on Human Rights Report Declares Government’s Plans for Children in Custody Illegal...
  The Guardian: Lawyer who Acted Against British Soldiers Faces Death Threats...
  PIL Press Release: Court of Appeal Asked to Rule on Legality of Military Interrogation Practices...
  Law Society Calls for Action as Human Rights Lawyer Receives Death Threats...
  PIL: JUDICIAL REVIEW TRIAL OF THE MOTHER OF ONE OF THE 6 ROYAL MILITARY POLICE KILLED IN IRAQ ON 24 ...
  The Shield's Gazette: Redcap’s mum seeks new inquiry at High Court...