We have enormous sympathy and the greatest respect for those who have acted with such determination and industry on behalf of the claimant; the case has been conducted on behalf of the claimant with great skill and very considerable restraint and economy….They have substantially succeeded on the issue… and in that success they have sustained a very important public interest under the Convention that otherwise might have gone by default.  We cannot stress too highly our indebtedness to the claimant’s legal team and the necessity for the highest quality of legal representation in cases involving such difficult issues relating to important matters of real public interest.  R (Ali Zaki Mousa (No.2)) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 2941(Admin). Judgment dated 02.10.2013

Rt Hon Sir John Thomas and Honourable Mr Justice Silber
 
 

Appeal hearing on Government’s unlawful “Back to Work” schemes

19 December 2012

                                                                                      

Today, Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson, will ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the earlier decision of the High Court and quash the Regulations[1] under which the Government has made many of its “back to work” schemes. Over the two day hearing, the Court will also hear a cross-appeal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision that stripping our client of his benefits for six months was unlawful because the DWP failed, as required by law, to provide him basic information about the consequences of not participating in the scheme. Iain Duncan Smith knows that if he is not successful in the cross-appeal then tens of thousands of other jobseekers who have had their benefits stripped by his department will also be able to seek repayment.

We represent two clients who have been subject to very different schemes:

Cait Reilly – the sector based work activity scheme

In November 2011 Cait was forced to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at a branch of Poundland. She  was told that if she didn’t carry out the work placement she would lose her Jobseekers Allowance.  For two weeks she was made to stack shelves and clean floors. Poundland got free labour whilst she gained nothing and received no training. She was not given a job interview at the end of the two weeks and the museum where she volunteered was left short staffed.

Jamie Wilson – the Community Action Progamme

In November 2011, Jamie, a qualified mechanic, was told that he had to work unpaid, cleaning furniture for 30 hours a week for six months under a scheme known as the Community Action Programme. Whilst he desperately wanted to find a job he objected to doing unpaid work that was completely unrelated to his qualifications and would not help him re-enter the job market. He refused to participate and as a result was stripped of his Jobseekers Allowance for six months.  

 

On behalf of our clients, Public Interest Lawyers, will argue that:

  • The Regulations fail to provide any description of the schemes to which people like our client can be subjected. This is contrary to statute;
  • The Government has failed to publish any policies setting out the limits of the schemes;
  • The schemes are contrary to the prohibition on forced labour under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
  • The six month sanction imposed on Jamie Wilson was unlawful as Jamie had not, as is required by law, been provided with basic information related to the consequences of failing to participate and/or what he could be asked to do under the scheme.

The hearing will begin at 10:30 am in Court Room 63, Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London.

Cait Reilly states:

I hope that the court will uphold our appeal. It is time that these “back to work” schemes were scrapped. They do not help ease unemployment – they cause more by taking away paid jobs. The government is subsidising free labour for high street stores and profit making corporations.

 

Joanna Long, a spokesperson for Boycott Workfare notes:

"Inventing ad hoc policy and failing to make information publicly available is causing chaos and misery for tens of thousands of claimants. We are regularly contacted by people who have been wrongly forced onto workfare schemes or else risk losing their subsistence benefits. The government has seriously failed in its duty to inform claimants of their rights. We hope that human rights will be upheld for the millions of claimants who face the threat of workfare."

 

Tessa Gregory, solicitor, Public Interest Lawyers, added:

“Our clients are bringing this appeal not only for themselves but also for the thousands of others who are being bullied into unpaid work. We maintain that the regulations themselves are unlawful and ought to be quashed. It must be time for Iain Duncan Smith to go back to the drawing board, when figures show that less than 3.5% of those referred to such schemes actually get long term work.”



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


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  PIL: Grand Chamber ruling in Iraq Camp Bucca disappearance case...
  The Law Society Gazette: Fighting Library Cuts...
  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...