"We cannot part with this case without paying tribute to the claimants\' legal advisers who although greatly outnumbered by the Secretary of State\'s legal team have persisted with their requests for disclosure skilfully and with commendable determination." (per Lord Justice Scott-Baker in  R (on the application of Al-Sweady and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin)).
Lord Justice Scott-Baker
 
 

Judgment delivered on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes – Stripping of Benefits Unlawful

Today in a mixed judgment, the High Court held that the Regulations[1] under which the Government has created many of its flagship “Back to Work” schemes are lawful but that the decision of the Department of Work and Pensions (the DWP) to strip our client of his benefits for six months for refusing to undertake compulsory work was unlawful.

The case was brought by Cait Reilly who participated in the "sector based work academy" scheme against her wishes and Jamie Wilson who refused to participate in the “Community Action Programme” when he was told that he had to work, cleaning furniture, without pay for 30 hours per week for six months. Mr Wilson objected to carrying out compulsory unpaid labour. In May 2012 Mr Wilson was informed that as a result of his failure to participate in the scheme he was to be stripped of his Jobseeker’s Allowance for six months.

In a decision that has potentially far-reaching consequences the Judge held that the decision to strip our client of his benefits for six months was unlawful because the DWP failed, as required by law, to provide information to him about the consequences of not participating in the scheme. Mr Wilson received the DWP’s standard form letters requiring his attendance on the Community Action Programme. These letters, which have been sent out to thousands of other people mandating their attendance on such schemes, failed to comply with the basic notice requirements that would allow the DWP to lawfully impose benefit sanctions.

Over the last year, across the country, tens of thousands of people have been stripped of their benefits and must now be entitled to reimbursement by the DWP.

Tessa Gregory of Public Interest Lawyers stated:

“As of January 2012, over 22,000 people[2] had been stripped of their benefits for failing to participate in the Work Programme alone. That figure must now have doubled. Today’s decision should mean that many of those subjected to benefit sanctions will be entitled to reimbursement by the Department of Work and Pensions. It is truly extraordinary that the Government has found itself in this position by failing to provide basic information to those affected. 

We welcome the Court’s ruling on this issue but we continue to maintain that the Regulations themselves are unlawful and ought to be quashed. We are seeking  permission to appeal the Court’s findings in this regard.”

 


[1] Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011

 
 
See also:
 
 
Judgment


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  PIL: Court of Appeal hands down its judgment...
  PIL Press Release: Trafficked People have the Right to Recover Damages from their Traffickers Irres...
  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...